Talk:Vagina/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Thanks, SilkTork. Ask if you don't understand something. I need to rest for some hours before coming back online. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No rush - it'll take me a long while to get through the initial stage, so I wouldn't be looking for your input for a good few days yet. SilkTork (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• GA criteria have been met. Listing as a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Article is semi-protected, and recent disruptions have been settled via formal community intervention, so the article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Article has appropriate images. SilkTork (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Article has been checked for copyvio. Spelling and grammar is OK - any errors I see I will fix as I go through. SilkTork (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Other than the Sainte Phalle "give birth" sentence, queried below, the Society and culture section meets GA standards. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral. I still have some hesitation regarding "incorrect use of the term vagina" in the Etymology and definition section; however, as that section does follow sources, I feel that is more my personal disquiet rather than a legitimate GA concern. The article does do a superb job of remaining neutral on a politically charged topic. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Original research. In my study of the article I have seen no evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Prose. The article is written to a high standard. I have some remaining qualms regarding the use of technical language in places; however, I am persuaded by explanation that the article is as clear as it could be regarding the nature of the topic. SilkTork (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Major aspects. Areas likely to be of interest to general readers are covered. Considering the complexity of the topic, it is impressive this has been done in the space. SilkTork (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Focus. I still have doubts about the amount of detail in the Microanatomy section compared to the rest of the article; however I am persuaded by explanation that the detail in the section is needed, and that a sub-article would not be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Query

*There is a copyright concern tag on File:Bumm 158 lg.jpg as it needs an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in Germany. SilkTork (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC) All other files are fine, so 6A would be met once that is sorted out. SilkTork (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed it. It's such a good image, though. Hopefully we can find a good replacement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Criteria 6B includes MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which suggests we "Strive for variety". I am unclear why we need three images of mucosa in quick succession, such that a fourth image (that of the cervix) is pushed into the following section, which impinges on layout per MOS:LAYIM. I am also not clear why the image of the cervix with speculum is placed in that section, and why we later have an image of just a speculum in the section on Pelvic examinations. I am unsure on how helpful to the general public are the first two images of the mucosa; though the third image is clear and vivid - we can see and understand. SilkTork (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. I moved the "Vaginal mucosa normal versus menopause" image to the "Effects of aging and childbirth" section, where it has more relevance. I left the "medium-power magnification micrograph of a H&E stained slide" image where it is because of its relevance to the "Microanatomy section" and how it's helpful to see a microanatomy slide in addition to the real-life image of the rugae. I moved the speculum image to the "Pelvic examinations" section. I also moved the "medical ultrasonography" image to the "Anomalies and other health issues" section since that section talks about urinary problems. The "Effects of aging and childbirth" section mentions stress urinary incontinence, but still. We can also remove the "medical ultrasonography" image altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

*Criteria 1A on copvio. The copvio tool has thrown up wording which remains close to the source. The source is womenshealth.gov.

Our wording: "An injection for pain control during childbirth is often administered through the vaginal wall and near the pudendal nerve. This nerve carries sensations from the lower part of the vagina and vulva. This is only used late in labor, before the baby's head emerges. With a pudendal nerve block, there is some relief from the pain and the laboring woman remains awake, alert, and able to push the baby out. The baby is not affected by this medicine, and its administration carries very few disadvantages."

The source: "A doctor injects numbing medicine into the vagina and the nearby pudendal nerve. This nerve carries sensation to the lower part of your vagina and vulva. This is only used late in labor, usually right before the baby's head comes out. With a pudendal block, you have some pain relief but remain awake, alert, and able to push the baby out. The baby is not affected by this medicine and it has very few disadvantages." SilkTork (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That text was added by Barbara (WVS). I've changed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Criteria 2B. The Tripp A cite (currently 225) is a dead link. I'm looking at it on the Wayback Machine, and not getting much from it, but I can see it is a theses, and looks unpublished. Academia.edu appears to be a questionable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_187#academia.edu. The information that is cited to that paper is likely to be available in one of the reliable sources that Andrew Tripp used to write his theses, which he would have listed - unfortunately all I can see is the abstract. SilkTork (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed and changed source. I don't know how reliable the BookBaby publishing company is, but I see that it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia. I didn't come across another source for the material. If it's felt that BookBaby is a poor source, we can remove the passage altogether. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Journal of Mammalogy as a source on the coyote, and it feels more appropriate than the BookBaby source. It was the Andrew Tripp source on academia.edu (currently cite 228) regarding the Sainte Phalle sculpture. He was quoting Sainte Phalle, and he must have got that quote from somewhere as it seems unlikely he interviewed her himself as she died 13 years before he wrote his thesis. I'm ambivalent about the statement itself ("Sainte Phalle stated that the sculpture represented a fertility goddess who was able to receive visitors into her body and then "give birth" to them again.") as the previous sentence gives the essential information ("Museum patrons can go inside her body by entering a door-sized vaginal opening."). As a mild copyedit "The outer form is a giant, reclining sculpture of a woman with her legs spread. Museum patrons can go inside her body by entering a door-sized vaginal opening." could be run together as one sentence: "The outer form is a giant, reclining sculpture of a woman which visitors can enter through a door-sized vaginal opening between her spread legs." There is an image of the installation on Commons, but it's not a good one: File:Tinguely 'celebrates'Niki's de Sain Phalle birthdayat Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.The Netherlands.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we are seeing different numbers when it comes to references, which is why I mistook which reference you were referring to before, although I should have paid better attention. For example, you call the Tripp source "currently cite 228." But, for me, it was currently 225. I didn't add the Tripp material, but I remember tweaking its reference. Anyway, I restored the Journal of Mammalogy source, and added your suggested copyedit. As for the Tripp source being dead, I looked at Internet Archive, and only saw this. I removed the passage and source because, as noted at Academia.edu, anyone can upload their own material there. Not a solid source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Focus. The article moves through a range of aspects related to the topic; the aspects being mostly those that an average reader is likely to want, and apart from Microanatomy, no section is particularly large. At 53 kB (8510 words) this is reasonably large, but considering the importance and complexity of the topic that size is probably about right. I'm impressed that it has been kept under 55 kB; and I'm sure that would have taken some considerable thought and discussion! I feel that the bulk of the article is fine, but I have doubts about that Microanatomy section. It is highly technical, very dense, and that, combined with its length, suggests to me that people will have difficulty reading it, and most are likely to give up, so defeating the purpose of it being there.

My feeling is that the section needs both trimming and simplifying. In my experience that can be difficult to do for the primary contributor, as it looks like it might need a different approach. I would suggest someone else look at it, and see if they can make it easier for the general reader to absorb and understand. As it is so technical, it would need someone familiar with the topic. SilkTork (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, with regard to simplifying, it was tackled and done when preparing this article for GA status. It's not me being close to the article that has me saying that there is nothing else that can be done to simplify the Microanatomy section, except for using different wording for "longitudinal" and "continuous" or briefly explaining what something like mitochondria is...in the way I briefly explained what apoptosis is. It is highly technical and very dense because that is how the material is. What you are suggesting is like trying to simplify the Geometry article and most of our other math articles for readers. Many readers are not going to understand what is in the Calculus article. Similarly, except for a few wording changes, there is no way to simplify the Microanatomy section any further because there are no other words for most of those technical terms. And going into further detail won't help since there are just more technical terms on top of those. I mean, look at the the Human brain article, which uses a lot more technical terminology than this one, and is an article I also worked on and helped bring to GA status. When looking at Cervix#Histology, the Microanatomy section of the Vagina article is not much different in terms of technical language. As seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 9, I and others worked on simplifying the Microanatomy section parts of the Vagina article as best we could. And what is in the Microanatomy section is important; so it shouldn't be trimmed or split off into its own article. Not that it needs its own article anyway. And the section is of decent size, not too big and not too small. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed some wording/language in the Microanatomy section to better help readers understand. The Vagina article stated "continuous," but the Vaginal epithelium article currently states "contiguous." Either way, I felt I should specify "extension of," like some sources do. I also thought about using the word "meets" (and appropriate wording to go along with it) in addition to "extension of"...instead of "shares a border." Sources don't usually state "meets," though. Really, I'm more comfortable with sticking with "continuous," per sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've pondered this a bit. I don't think that section is helpful to the general reader, but my feeling is that most readers will simply skip it. Will this harm the rest of the article? Who can say? Probably not. I think it is a general flaw in Wikipedia that some of our articles are too technical and inward looking for the general reader. There are no doubt several theories as to why that is, but it is not the place of this review to take a stance on that issue. Some of the criteria in GA are down to individual interpretation - my own inclination is to say that section is not clear enough and so should fail Criteria 1 (A); indeed, I feel there are still some words and phrases in the rest of the article that could be made clearer (but not to the same level as this section). However, I hear what you are saying, and I am aware that we do have other articles that use technical language. If you have already worked on making it clearer, and feel you cannot make it clearer than it is, I have to decide to pass or fail the article passed on the situation in front of me. As this is an interpretation of the criteria, and you have given a reasoned response, and the article is otherwise impressive, I think it would be inappropriate to hold up the GA just for that. So I am accepting this section, but will record that I still have qualms about it. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't state that it's a failure of Wikipedia. I think it all comes down to microanatomy material (and similar technical material) mainly being something that only specialists and those familiar with the material will understand. For example, I doubt that a Microanatomy section will ever exist in the Simple English Wikipedia Vagina article...unless it's the bare basics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Main aspects. In my general research around the topic it appears that the main aspects are covered. My one query in this area is regarding vaginal and pelvic floor exercises. This is a common topic, and is a known concern of women after childbirth. I am sure this would have been discussed previously (I've not checked back in the talkpages). Why are exercises relevant to the vagina not mentioned? Or have I missed it? SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Vaginal floor exercises were briefly mentioned. I don't see that it needs a section to itself. Further, stuff like vaginal weightlifting is pseudo-medical; there is very little research to support it. See Talk:Vagina/Archive 11#Vaginal weightlifting for the discussion. Anyway, you can see with this version that the exercise material was in the article. It was removed when we agreed to cut the section. I didn't even think about the removal of that aspect. Thanks for spotting it. I've restored it, but in a different way since the "Effects of aging and childbirth" section touches on prolapse. The content seems better placed there than in the "Anomalies and other health issues" section since it's the effects of childbirth and aging that mainly contribute to weakened pelvic floor muscles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable sources. The article is richly sourced, and makes positive use of academic sources. I haven't checked through all sources, but these caught my eye, and I wondered if there were no better sources: Myth Buster to support "rather than along the whole length"; and The Big Book of Sex Toys for "Some women and couples use sex toys, such as a vibrator or dildo, for vaginal pleasure". And I wondered why Cengage Learning texts were used so extensively as they are tertiary student text books; we do allow tertiary sources, though WP:MEDBOOK does caution that up to date medical texts are preferred. SilkTork (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the Myth Buster source either, and I stated as much. But it was added during a compromise, after much debating with an editor who had trouble following and understanding our policies and guidelines; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 10. The discussion at Talk:Vagina/Archive 10#Pain during childbirth significantly decreased due to a lack vaginal nerve endings shows where I compromised with that editor by using that source. I saw no other sources for that specific wording. I would be fine with removing the source and changing the text to "Fewer nerve endings in the vagina make childbirth pain significantly more tolerable." Or "Because of the fewer nerve endings in the vagina, childbirth pain is significantly more tolerable." In fact, I went ahead and did that. As for "The Big Book of Sex Toys," it is a book by sex educator Tristan Taormino, and the statement is not controversial. I can replace it, but the best option I'm seeing for replacing it is another Cengage Learning source. As for Cengage Learning sources specifically, there are not many in the article and they are used for sexual and cultural content, but mainly sexual content; they are fine per WP:MEDRS. I didn't choose them out of preference; I chose them because they were there, appropriate, and I didn't see why I should look for other sources. The same goes for the Clitoris article with regard to using Cengage Learning sources. Cengage Learning sources are usually the main academic sources to pop up on Google Books for sexual content. And in terms of quality, they have the same quality as the Jones & Bartlett Publishers and the Routledge sexuality sources I've included. Something like "Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality" is also geared toward students, but these are the main types of quality sexuality sources on Google Books. I certainly didn't want to go with self-help books or the popular press. As for WP:MEDDATE, like I told Barbara (WVS), "WP:MEDDATE does not mean that the sources need to be newer; it doesn't mean that I need trade out an older source for a newer source every couple or few years. It means that the content should be up-to-date when it comes to the text we are including. This is why it states, 'In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written.' The content should be current knowledge. [...] I do not need to trade out a 2013 source for a 2017 source simply for appearances' sake. Still, because some editors interpret WP:MEDRS wrongly in that way, which has been challenged time and time again, I sometimes trade out older sources for newer sources when it's not necessary. That is only for show." You can see a similar discussion (which I pointed you to via email) about this here at Talk:Cervix/GA2. WP:MEDBOOK also states, "Ensure that the book is up to date, unless a historical perspective is required." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for talking me through that. I'm OK with the sources. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria 1A Prose clarity

I think this will be a tricky one - pitching the language so that it conveys accurately and succinctly the information, but yet is clearly understandable to the general public. We discussed this a bit when doing the GA on Clitoris, and you worked well there to find the right language, so I'm positive the same will happen here. As I go through I will identify areas that I think need more clarity, and work with you if an alternative word or phrase is not easy to find. My first word is fibromuscular. I can see it has been linked to Wiktionary, but such linking is rarely helpful - linking is best used to provide people with optional greater detail or information, not as a substitute for providing essential information. In this case Wiktionary simply say: "(anatomy) Of or pertaining to both fibrous and muscular tissue", which is not helpful as I think most people would have guessed something like that. It's the fibrous part that we are not sure of. I click on fibrous to be given: "Of or pertaining to fibre". Not helpful. I click on fibre to be given eight choices, the most likely of which is "A long tubular cell found in muscle tissue; myocyte." And that's not clear either. So for all that clicking, I'm still not sure what the word means. MOS:JARGON indicates that wikilinking is not a substitute for using clear language, and the example of fibromuscular shows why. As an additional point, fibromuscular does not appear again in our article. Instead we have "The human vagina is an elastic muscular canal that extends from the vulva to the cervix", which is clear and understandable, and echoes what other sources say. SilkTork (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per the WP:ANATSIMPLIFY essay, I recognize that some anatomy terms need to be made clearer for readers. I don't view them as jargon, though. And there are cases were they can't be changed. That stated, I've gone ahead and removed "fibromuscular," but someone might re-add it in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• In the lead paragraph on sexual activity we have "reduces friction" followed by "creates friction". The "creates friction" phrase is only used in the lead. Later in the article "stimulates" is used. SilkTork (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Reduces friction" is used in relation to vaginal lubrication. "Creates friction" is used in relation to the texture of the vaginal walls. I've added "creates friction" lower for the penis part to match the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the two different uses of "friction" in the lead is confusing for some readers. To me, it's mainly fine. I'm drawing a blank on what to use in place of "friction" for the second lead instance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Some sources do use friction, others use stimulate. I assume that the later use of the word friction is to indicate rubbing, but I can't recall that word being used in that sense in sources I've trawled, as sexual rubbing is generally understood to be what occurs just outside the vagina. Stimulate would work fine, but is already in use in that sentence. You have this sentence later on: "this stimulates the penis and helps to cause a man to experience orgasm and ejaculation", and that seems OK. SilkTork (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As the link shows, I had changed "this stimulates the penis" to "this creates friction for the penis." I did so because it seemed you were looking for consistency. Plus, "creates friction" isn't vague like "stimulates" is. I thought about changing it to "this stimulates and creates friction for the penis," but I found it redundant since the penis is obviously being stimulated in the process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry for delay, busy for a while with not much time for Wikipedia. Anyway, where I left off, and have now returned is pondering the "Using the term vagina to mean "vulva"" paragraph. My (mild) concern when first reading that paragraph was that it felt a little bit polemic, and was coming on strong against the vernacular, particularly with the emphasis on "incorrect", "correct" and "correct". It seemed like it was taking sides, and telling the population that they were wrong, which impacts on WP:NEUTRAL, a GA criteria. I have been reading around, and there are numerous everyday publications which discuss the same thing. So it is clearly an appropriate topic to bring up. However, the tone and approach of the language does "feel" to be weighted in terms of Wikipedia advising readers to "get it right", rather than advising readers that there is this concern about terminology. To be honest I can't pin it down, because the the final statement does say "researchers endorse correct terminology", which is the appropriate neutral language. And sources do use the term "correct". I also note that you have extensive direct quoting in the cites to back up what is said for that tricky bit of "not as much thought going into the anatomy of the female genitals". I think I am pretty much satisfied that the paragraph is weighted appropriately, and that tweaking would likely reduce its effectiveness, but feel it important to raise it here both so that the issue is aired and you have a chance to come in, and also so it can be seen that the paragraph has been considered seriously. I had not read back previous talkpage discussions on the matter, but have just done so, and found mentions in Talk:Vagina/Archive_1#Pictures,_diagrams, Talk:Vagina/Archive_4#My_recent_clarification:_Vagina_vs._vulva_again, Talk:Vagina/Archive_9, and Talk:Vagina/Archive_10. SilkTork (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. Looking again, I am wondering if "incorrect use" would be better phrased as "imprecise use" (which is what in reality we are talking about). And "endorse correct terminology" would be better as "endorse precise terminology". There is also the "unsaid" balance of "not as much thought...." which it is implied would be finished off with "...as male". And the unspoken information in "a better understanding of female genitalia can help combat sexual and psychological harm" which leads to the question: "how?". I think we either need that fuller explanation, or perhaps a trimming of the wording. I am not entirely sure that our vagina article would have room for a detailed discussion on the politics of the terminology, though I feel that there is probably enough material for an article on that topic. SilkTork (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The delay is fine. It helps give me more time off from Wikipedia. As noted in the article, the term vagina is incorrectly used to refer to the vulva. As you noted, this has been discussed before (although there isn't actually a discussion about it in Archive 10). "Incorrect" is what sources state, and they also note that this incorrect usage is problematic/harmful. This issue is addressed both in the "Etymology and definition" section and the "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" section. It was important to address that in the article. And the reason I endorse the term incorrect every time, besides preferring to be factual, is because being neutral on Wikipedia doesn't mean what being neutral means in common discourse. On Wikipedia, it means following sources with WP:Due weight. And if going by anatomy sources, which are the main sources we should be looking at for this topic, calling the vulva the vagina is incorrect. Dictionary sources are also strict on the matter. That stated, because of the view that calling the usage incorrect is at conflict with common usage, I did compromise by using "colloquially." The word colloquially is used in the lead and in the "Etymology and definition" section. Does the "Etymology and definition" section also note "incorrect use"? Yes, but that's because it should. I could be open to changing the wording to "imprecise use," which is what we did for the Pedophilia article with regard to incorrect terminology, both for the lead and the "Misuse of medical terminology" section, but that section does currently have the term misuse in its title. Also, in the case of that term, dictionary sources can be bland and forgo including "prepubescent"; so it makes more sense to avoid "incorrect" in the case of that article. Anyway, "imprecise" is considered a synonym for "incorrect." So per that and per what sources state, I don't see why we don't just stick with "incorrect" for the Vagina article. I'd like to hear Rivertorch's thoughts on this since he's been with me at this article for years and is good with grammar/ wording usage stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A synonym for imprecise would be "approximate", as in - "almost right, but not quite". A synonym for incorrect would be "wrong", as in "not right". Language is tricky as people sometimes feel that there are fixed and absolute rules for language which everyone should obey. But language is simply the means by which we communicate, and it is flexible. That legal and medical usages are different to everyday uses is very common. Each are appropriate when used in the appropriate register, so telling folks that the language they use is "wrong" when the communication is actually effective in the relevant register can meet some resistance and confusion. I don't use vagina to mean the entirety of female genitals, but it appears a lot of people do. They are not "wrong" to do so if what they mean is the whole she-bang - as in "cunt" or "pussy". But informing them that such language is imprecise would be acceptable. That said, though, Wikipedia needs to always follow sources and not to make interpretations (or "corrections" :-)), so I understand your reluctance to use imprecise. I have raised it here as I found I had some resistance to that paragraph and at first I couldn't pin it down, but the problem area does seem to centre on the use of the word "incorrect". SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, we still disagree on use of "incorrect" in this case. Per what I stated above about it, "incorrect" is correct in this instance and I don't see why we should water it down. I've already compromised by going along with "colloquially." Readers can be offended on their incorrect terminology, but they are indeed incorrect. As if stubborn, rebelling teenagers, many people insist on using incorrect terminology after being told they are wrong. Sometimes they simply like the incorrect terminology because they are used to it or the correct terminology makes them uncomfortable, as it does in the case of using "vulva" or "clitoris" instead of "vagina." I understand why you've addressed this, and I was more lenient at one time (although I shouldn't have stated that the incorrect usage is just another definition), but I still support "incorrect." And as for a synonym, I know how "imprecise" is used, but I meant that "imprecise" is listed as a synonym for "incorrect" in various (but not all and maybe not most) dictionaries or thesauruses...including the online ones like this one. It's still taken to mean "wrong," but in a softer way. When it comes to a vulva vs. a vagina, however, I can't agree with the notion that calling one the other is "almost right, but not quite." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As that is what sources say, then you are right in sticking with it, and it's not going to impact the GA. However, as a thought going forward, the inclusion of that material with that language does put up a barrier for me, and I assume others as well, which then might create a barrier to a reader's willingness to absorb information from the rest of the article. The tone of it is not quite right. The assumption that people are thinking only of the technical vagina when referring to the genitals as vagina I find difficult to take. That seems to be a misunderstanding in itself. Have you heard Germaine Greer's thoughts on using the word cunt to refer to the genital area? There is a debate here. SilkTork (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC) It is mentioned in our Cunt article - which you have edited, so I assume you are familiar with her thoughts; however, for clarity, here is an edit quote used in the cite in that article: "... in the 1970s I thought this word [cunt] for the female genitalia shouldn't be abusive. I believed it should be an ordinary, everyday word ... it [vagina] refers to the internal canal only; all the bits that make it fun are left out. ... I refuse to think of my sex as simply a receptacle for a weapon.". SilkTork (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating that "people are thinking only of the technical vagina when referring to the genitals as vagina." That's the point -- it's common that people think of the vulva, or vagina and vulva, when stating "vagina," and thinking like that is incorrect because the vulva is not a vagina. The definitions section is for the definitions. A vulva is not a vagina by any valid definition. The article is about the vagina, although it mentions the vulva at times. We have a separate article for the vulva. If readers want to know about the vulva, they will go to the Vulva article. I highly doubt that they will write this article off because it notes in the definitions section that calling the vulva a vagina is technically wrong. Like Nigelj once stated, "I've heard lots of people muddle up the Internet and the World Wide Web too. And the greenhouse effect and the hole in the ozone layer as well as electric current and voltage. That is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia, so that people who are not sure what words refer to can look them up and find out, not look them up and be told, 'it means whatever you want it to mean, just use these words any how you like.' " Yes, I'm familiar with Greer's views on things, but I don't see how her quote goes against correct terminology for the female genitalia. Cunt is a slang and vulgar term that is still mainly used abusively, no matter how many women may want to reappropriate it. It seems to me that she is saying that she prefers cunt because it covers more than the word vagina. She's recognizing the restrictive nature of the latter term. If she objects to that restrictive nature, she knows that it's just an objection and is not something she can do anything about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "not as much thought," I added in "as has gone into the study of male genitals." I didn't see it as needed, but it is clearer. Regarding "a better understanding of female genitalia can help combat sexual and psychological harm," the "how" aspect is already addressed by the "a person's interpretation of its location might not match another's interpretation of the location" text. We could include rape or child sexual abuse as an example., but I don't see that it's needed. Maybe I'm thinking with an "it's common sense that we mean things like sexual abuse" mindset. Another harmful aspect is addressed in the "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" section, which is a subsection of the "Society and culture" section. I don't think that the content should be merged since the latter content is specific to that latter section. I'd rather keep the "Etymology and definition" section restricted to terminological issues rather than have it go into cultural details that are better suited for the "Society and culture" section. As for a separate article to address the misuse, I'm not seeing that it's needed. Yes, I know that I keep saying "not needed" in this paragraph, LOL. And when looking for material on the misuse back then, I didn't come across enough material to expand it beyond what is stated in the article, meaning beyond repetitiveness. If it is notable enough for its own article, it's a WP:No page matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll look further into your comments. I'm not seeing anything here that is going to be a significant hindrance to GA status, but I do want to explore these issues to ensure we are covering areas that may later be bought up by people who wish to challenge the GA status. SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::Sorry to be slow to respond to the ping. Clearly, the common usage is sufficiently widespread to deserve mention, but how to characterize it? In general, I favor a descriptive approach in discussion of word usage on Wikipedia; as an encyclopedia striving for a neutral point of view, it's not our job to tell readers that they're right or wrong when they use a word in a certain way, and usually we don't. Modern-day dictionaries intended for a general readership are rarely prescriptive either, but I note that no major dictionary notes that vagina is used to mean more than one thing (as an anatomical word relating to humans, that is). I actually find that a little surprising, and I suspect this is likely to change in the next few years. (Wiktionary acknowledges reality, listing the popular usage as colloquial, which has no real bearing on what we do but is interesting nonetheless.) Unsurprisingly, specialist sources, such as the medical texts cited in the article, use the word in only one way.

I do think that a somewhat precriptivist approach may be warranted if either of two conditions are met: (1) if reliable sources are prescriptive or (2) if our failure to emphasize a problematic usage seems likely to contribute to people misunderstanding the topic. I don't have time today to look closely at the sources cited in the relevant paragraph, but if one or more of them says that the colloquial usage poses a problem, then I think we should note that, too. But is it incorrect or is it imprecise? What do the sources say? If they use the word incorrect (or something synonymous), I wouldn't take issue with our doing the same. Maybe taking it out of Wikipedia's voice—saying it's frequently termed incorrect (if that's true) instead of calling it "the incorrect use", especially in a sentence without a citation at the end—would be preferable. I think imprecise maybe doesn't hit quite the right note because it suggests vagueness or a lack of precision. People who use vagina to mean "vulva" are either being wrong or simply being colloqial, depending on your viewpoint, but they're not really being vague or imprecise per se. Then again, it seems likely enough that lots of people use vagina to collectively mean both vulva and vagina. That is vague in its own way, I guess, sort of like using the slang word package to refer to the male sex organs collectively. When they use it to mean specifically the vulva, that strikes me as roughly akin to people saying testicles (or more likely balls) to refer to the scrotum and the various bits, including testicles, housed within.

I don't know if any of this helps, but it's what occurs to me. I will say that the current wording doesn't bother me—not even the word incorrect. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize, River. I don't like wording such as "frequently termed incorrect" because it tempts editors to add a Template:By whom tag. We could state "by sexology and medical sources," but "frequently termed incorrect" is still weasel wordish and unnecessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as a potentially elegant solution. I'm curious to know what SilkTork thinks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

To me, it would still come across as weasel wordish. And I'd prefer to actually have a source that states "by sexology and medical sources" if we were to use that wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Other animals section. Should the "traumatic insemination" be in the next paragraph, which mainly deals with non-vaginal insemination?

The section is titled other animals, yet the second paragraph starts with "In the case of other animals". Are we looking for another defining term for what is being described in the second paragraph? Or are we looking to organise the first two paragraphs differently? I thought at first, that paragraph one was dealing with animals with vaginas, while paragraph two was dealing with non-vaginal insemination, but we have information about chickens with vaginas in the second paragraph.

What is an "external vagina"?

This is actually Focus rather than prose clarity, but while talking about this section: How relevant to an article on the vagina is the non-human primates paragraph? It talks about ovarian cycle, HIV, etc, but only incidentally about the vagina, and then mostly to say that its not the same.

:Again, this is more to do with Coverage/Focus than clarity, but while on the same section (and this is relatively minor): the bit about neotrogla is interesting. My hesitation is regarding if this is strictly on topic, or are we wandering into incidental material. But having mentioned the neotrogla, perhaps a little more information is required, otherwise it's a bit of a tease, and also - because it is related, and people may wonder why one is mentioned and not the other - having mentioned the bugs, why not also mention the seahorse and ovipositors in general. My feeling is that as the interest in neotrogla appears to be more based around the "sexual reversal" and the penis like nature of the female gynosome, that perhaps vagina is not the most appropriate article for discussing it - interesting though it is. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed "In the case of other animals." I'm not sure how best to format the section, but you can obviously give it a try. The second paragraph begins by stating "Birds, monotremes, and some reptiles have a part of the oviduct that leads to the cloaca." I suppose that is why the chicken material is in that paragraph, since chickens are birds and the text states "chickens have a vaginal aperture that opens from the vertical apex of the cloaca. The vagina extends upward from the aperture and becomes the egg gland." I think it was located there (perhaps by me; I'd need to check) to keep cloaca material together. By "an external vagina," what is meant is "vaginal opening" or "external vaginal opening," as is clear in the Spotted hyena article. As the aforementioned link shows, I changed it to "external vaginal opening" since the clitoris of that species acts as a vaginal opening. I removed the Neotrogla material. The reason that I added the Macaques material is because non-human primate vaginal information should be mentioned. They are closest to us, and it's the type of comparative anatomy material that should be in the article. I can trim it, but I think it's best with the detail it has. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Technical phrases

I'll list here those phrases which strike me as too technical to be easily understood by a general reader. This is not exhaustive or definitive, simply observations that grab me while reading though. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• The opening of the vagina lies in the urogenital triangle in the perineum.

urogenital triangle is only used here. And perineum is only used here, though is included in the lead image, where its position is marked. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are requesting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my short-hand thinking! Yes, that wasn't very clear was it. I was wondering how useful such words were to an understanding of the topic when they are only used once and are technical/unfamiliar, and can't be understood from the context. Readers are forced to click though to the appropriate article for an understanding. Having clicked through, I'm still unclear as to the exact difference, from the mention in this article and the Perineum article, between the perineum and the vulva. An image search throws up the same diagrams for both. Our Perineum article says both "The perineum is the space between ... the anus and the vulva in the female", and "The perineum is the region of the body between the pubic symphysis (pubic arch) and the coccyx (tail bone)".

So what I am requesting in this section is clarity and/or explanation when certain technical words or phrases are used. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Our Perineum article currently states that the perineum is the space between the anus and the vulva, but sources like this 2014 "Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology E-Book" source, page 3, state, "This term usually refers to the area of skin between the vaginal orifice and the anus." The vaginal orifice is a part of the vulva, but there are also sources that state "between the vagina and anus." For now, because of the different descriptions, I've forgone explaining what the perineum is in parentheses. Before saving my latest edit, I had some wording for it in parentheses, but then scrapped it because of the different descriptions. There are more sources that state "vaginal opening" or "vagina" instead of "vulva" for this aspect, though. So if you want us to explain what the perineum is (besides its relationship to the urogenital triangle), I'd go with "between the vaginal orifice and the anus," despite it being different wording than is currently used in the lead of the Perineum article. That might, however, confuse readers. Like sources do, the Structure section of that article does note that the definition can vary. I don't think stating "between the anus and the vulva or between the vaginal orifice and the anus" in parentheses would help, as this would just cloud the sentence. Giving it its own sentence would be taking away from the flow, and the focus of simply describing the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• anterior and posterior walls

front and back walls would be clearer and more appropriate for a general encyclopedia aimed at non-medical readers. If you feel anterior and posterior are more appropriate then perhaps "front (anterior) and back (posterior) walls" could be used? SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not technical, but for "upper third, middle third and lower third muscles and ligaments" would "upper, middle, and lower third muscles and ligaments" work? SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The upper third are the levator ani muscles, and the transcervical, pubocervical, and sacrocervical ligaments." This doesn't feel helpful as it is mostly a list of technical words - the ligament names are not used again in the article, and only one is linked. The essential information here appears to be that the vagina is supported by muscles and ligaments, and the important ones are then mentioned and described. In the article I see use of "vagina muscles" and "pelvic muscles". Are these the same? And what is the difference between "pelvic muscles" and "pelvic floor muscles"? Pelvic floor is not mentioned in the article, though is a common term.

Would something like this work?: "The vagina is supported by a group of muscles and ligaments; the muscles are in three sections of upper, middle, and lower, and are sometimes termed "pelvic floor muscles". The major vaginal support structures are the levator ani muscle, pubocervical ligament, cardinal ligament, parametrium tissue, and urogenital diaphragm." (I don't mean that exact sentence, which was quickly done, but something along those lines). SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Vagina muscles" and "pelvic muscles" are commonly used to mean the same thing when speaking of women, yes. But, as you know, pelvic muscles are not restricted to the vagina. I know of no difference between pelvic muscles and pelvic floor muscles; it's all a pelvic floor matter, which is why the terms redirect there. Is there some inconsistent use you are taking issue with? As for "levator ani muscles, and the transcervical, pubocervical, and sacrocervical ligaments," I see no other way to make people understand unless spelling out what all of these muscles are. And I can briefly do that. But we have the Vaginal support structures article for that. The Gross anatomy and Microanatomy sections are going to include technical material. The wording you have proposed doesn't specify which muscles make up which parts of the vagina, while I think doing so is important material to include for a Gross anatomy section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• the pubovaginal part

This is the only use of pubovaginal. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue. In some cases, a term will only be used once. Is there something more you want stated with regard to pubovaginal? Do you want us to link to the Pubovaginal muscle article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

See my comments above re "urogenital triangle in the perineum". SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• The opening to the vagina is closed by the labia minora in virgins and in females who have never given birth (nulliparous), but may be exposed in females who have given birth (parous).

I'm not sure what is being said here. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The labia minora is the lips, but the use of "closed" makes it sound as though it is the hymen. Would "covered" be acceptable? And why do we have both virgins and nulliparous females? And does "given birth" include by Caesarean section? Would something like this work: "The opening to the vagina is normally covered by the vaginal lips or labia minora, though may be exposed after vaginal delivery". And after checking the sources, I find the wording too close to this source: [1], and no mention of it at all in this source: [2]. SilkTork (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "obscured by" is better than "covered." I understand asking why we should note "virgins and nulliparous females," but the two are obviously not the same. I think that the source wanted to make it clear that it's not just virgins this is seen among, but also women who have sex but have never given birth. I don't see that "given birth" would include "by Caesarean section" in this case since the content is focused on the vaginal opening. Regarding the current wording, it's understandable that it would be close to the source. Like Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing states, "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact." The difference in the case you mention is that I spelled out what nulliparous and parous mean. As for the other source, it was added by Barbara (WVS). Anyway, I changed the wording to your suggested text (with minor adjustments) and removed the second reference from that spot. I'm not keen on "vaginal delivery" being linked before the Childbirth section, but "childbirth" is also mentioned/linked before that section (in the "Etymology and definition" section). I think that the "delivery" link in the Childbirth section should be pipelinked with "vaginal delivery" instead of "childbirth," and that "childbirth" should be linked at the top of the section as the main article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why is Vulgarism linked in the sentence "Various perceptions of the vagina have existed throughout history, including the belief it is the center of sexual desire, a metaphor for life via birth, inferior to the penis, unappealing to sight or smell, or vulgar." SilkTork (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Was confused for vulgarity. I changed the link. The title of the section clearly uses "vulgarity." Vulgar is a disambiguation page. Like the Vulgarism article notes, "In colloquial or lexical English, 'vulgarism' or 'vulgarity' may be synonymous with profanity or obscenity, but a linguistic or literary vulgarism encompasses a broader category of perceived fault not confined to scatological or sexual offensiveness." Even the top of the Cunt article currently states, "This article is about the vulgarism." And it also currently pipelinks to the Vulgarism article for the "vulgar word" usage in its lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Pelvic examinations. In this section there is a link to Pap test. This expression appears to be mainly American. In the UK, Pap tests were known as smear tests, and though such Cervical screening now uses Liquid-based cytology (source:[3]) it is still widely known as a smear test.(source: [4]) I am wondering if this section can be made more universal through including the phrase smear test, and also cervical screening. SilkTork (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, Pap test is the name of our Wikipedia article, and I'm more used to people stating "pap smear" than "pap test." Also, the term smear test currently redirects to the Cytopathology article, which is about "a branch of pathology that studies and diagnoses diseases on the cellular level." The Pap test article does include "smear test" as a WP:Alternative title in its lead, though. Anyway, taking all of this into account, I'm not sure about going with "smear test" instead; "Pap" is used in most of the alternative titles, and we don't want to confuse readers. But I did go ahead and include "or cervical smear" in parentheses. Followup fix here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria 1B The lead

We're almost there with this review. Just the lead to go through. My first query on this aspect is the focus of the article as a whole compared with the focus of the opening sentence. Other than the Other animals section the entire article focuses on the human vagina. The opening sentence does not make this clear, and reads awkwardly. It opens with and so prioritises "In mammals". The rest of the lead then deals with all animals, switching the focus here and there just to humans. But such is the way it is written there is a doubt in places as to if what is being said applies just to humans or to all animals. I'm wondering if the lead could be restructured so it more closely follows the focus of the main article - focus on the human vagina, and have a final paragraph which deals with other animals. I think this could be accomplished by removing "In mammals" and "in humans" from the first paragraph, and moving the second paragraph to the end of the lead, and refocusing it on a comparison of the vagina in other animals. SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

When designing the lead, I had WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy and what we did with the Clitoris article in mind. WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy states, "The lead should begin by stating in the most general form the location and purpose of the structure." In my opinion, we should be clear with the first sentence that we don't simply mean humans when stating "the vagina is the elastic, muscular part of the female genital." The article is human-dominant, but so is the Clitoris article, the Breast article and most other anatomy articles on Wikipedia. The Clitoris and Breast articles also start off with a general "mammals" description (well, "primates" for the Breast article) and then go into specifically talking about humans. The second and third paragraphs of the Vagina article cover content that applies to both humans and other animals. For example, the "female mammals usually have two external openings in the vulva, the urethral opening for the urinary tract and the vaginal opening for the genital tract" piece. The urethral opening vs. the vaginal opening is an important aspect that should be addressed early on. And if I make it seem like it only applies to humans by removing it from the paragraph you've suggested be the last paragraph, that isn't accurate. If I leave it in that paragraph and separate it from the other human content, then it's human anatomy material that is presented late and perhaps seems like it's only about other animals. And then there's the following in the third paragraph: "Vaginal moisture increases during sexual arousal in human females and also in other female mammals. This increase in moisture provides vaginal lubrication, which reduces friction. The texture of the vaginal walls creates friction for the penis during sexual intercourse and stimulates it toward ejaculation, enabling fertilization." As is obvious, this doesn't solely apply to humans.

So, yeah, for the lead, I think it's optimal to keep all of the location/purpose material together, and all of the sexual activity material together instead of trying to separate the non-human animal content and including location/purpose and sexual activity material twice (meaning once for humans and again for non-humans). The non-human animal content, and the material that only applies to humans, is specified with text. So unless you were referring to the lead paragraph, I'm unclear on your feeling that there is "doubt in places as to if what is being said applies just to humans or to all animals." But I understand what you mean about making it clear that the article's main focus is on humans; it's why the lead used to have the following line: "The vagina has been studied in humans more than it has been in other animals." It was removed during a dispute I had with Barbara (WVS); that dispute is now seen at Talk:Vagina/Archive 11#The lead paragraph. That sentence was removed because I didn't have a source for it. This nationalgeographic.com source, however, shows that non-human animal vaginal research (and research on female genitalia in general) is lacking, especially when compared to the study of male genitalia. So with this edit, I tweaked the lead sentence, added mention that animal vaginal research is lacking, and added some information about it in the "Other animals" section. Does this suffice for you? While most of the lead paragraph could have been taken to be about humans since it mentions the hymen (which is mainly documented in humans), childbirth, and menstrual flow (which is mainly associated with humans), I changed it slightly so that "birth" is used in place of "childbirth" and menstrual flow is noted as occurring in human females and closely related primates. I left the "menstrual flow" link pipelinked to the Menstruation article because the readers will no doubt mainly be looking for menstruation in humans, and the Menstruation article points to the Menstruation (mammal) article for other animals. I originally had "which occurs in humans" as "which primarily occurs in humans," but I removed "primarily" because menstruation is generally considered limited to humans and closely related primates; this is noted in the mammal article about it, and the two sources I listed limit it in that way as well. The Menstrual cycle article is mainly about humans, and so is the "monthly" aspect of menstruation; this is why I originally put that in parentheses in relation to humans...so that it read as "in humans (as part of the monthly menstrual cycle) and closely related primates." I changed it back since the Menstrual cycle article does briefly mention other animals in the lead. This poor source states that the cycle last "about 29 days in orang-utans, about 30 days in gorillas and about 37 days in chimpanzees." Although I used "monkeys" and "apes" for the menstruation part in the "Other animals" section, I wonder if I should have gone with "close relatives," like the Menstruation (mammal) article does, and given one example...considering the ape terminology that exists (even though the general public doesn't think of humans as apes). This is why I added on "relatives"...so that the text states "ape relatives." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I am convinced (as always) by your detailed, thoughtful and helpful response. I think I'm done here, and will list this today as a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• Cites marked "Arulkumaran" use page 471 and 472, but the same cite shortcut is used for both which is throwing up an error. Similar with "Smith" which uses page 80 and 443 but the same shortcut. SilkTork (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. I'll likely change them again so that the first occurrence goes by the last name and the second occurrence goes by the last name and a 2. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not a GA issue, but the current cervix image File:Cervix.jpg is not clear. Might be worth looking around for a clearer image moving forward. SilkTork (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I overlooked this comment before. It's not as clear as we'd like it to be, but it's clear enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Also not a GA issue, but worth thinking about; the lead vagina image shows a shaved woman. It's not necessary to use a shaved woman to show the essential points, as long as the woman is opening her vagina, and the natural state is unshaved, so the hair is part of the complete image, and is educational in itself. Shaving is a personal grooming choice, and while it is increasingly popular among younger women, it is still a minority choice. As it's not actually necessary to remove the pubic hair in order to show the vagina, there is the potential to see some political weighting in our use of a shaved woman. Some women like shaving, but others might feel slightly pressured into doing so by increasing amounts of media images of shaved women. This is not something I am suggesting should be changed, merely putting that thought forward for consideration. SilkTork (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of women shave, although it's not always a completely shaved vulva. The lead image has come up before via complaints. See, for example, Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Bald Vagina?, Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Hair, Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Photo and Talk:Vagina/Archive 8#Concerning the photo if you haven't already. I don't mind if it's a hairless image or not, as long as the vagina opening is clearly shown...including in a relaxed or somewhat relaxed state rather than a significantly stretched state. I'm not seeing any better real-life images on Commons. The current image is the clearest and most educational, given its number identification. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also had a search through Commons and couldn't see anything to offer. I raise it as something to consider looking into after the GA, as it's not going to impact on any of the criteria. I did look into pubic grooming, and a majority of women do groom, and around 20% of women in their early twenties will shave completely, but overall it's less than 5%, and that only accounts for Western women. It may be a coincidence, but research indicates that younger women also watch more porn, and shaved pubes is the standard in porn. Though I think there is possibly a general trend toward total shaving of the pubic area, same as there was for armpits in the later part of the 20th century. SilkTork (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)