Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1

Hitachi Magic Wand

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

As part of a Quality improvement project I've greatly researched and improved the article on the Hitachi Magic Wand. The article had a copy edit by Baffle gab1978 from the Guild of Copy Editors, and was successfully promoted to WP:GA after a helpful review by Kaciemonster as advised by Protonk. I'd appreciate comments on how to further improve its quality.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've posted notices about the peer review for this article, to the following pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, User talk:Cirt (self, nominator for Peer Review), User talk:Protonk (adviser to WP:GA Reviewer), User talk:Kaciemonster (GA Reviewer), User talk:Baffle gab1978 (WP:GOCE copy editor). — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Protonk

I'll make some copy edits as I look through this. The one thing I'm concerned about is the inclusion of web addresses in text, e.g. "The "Fluffer Tip Wand Attachment" sold at thepleasurechest.com may be placed over the device and can be used to mimic the sensation of cunnilingus." and "The Hitachi Magic Wand was available for purchase in 2003 through the website drugstore.com." I'm not certain these sentences are really needed and I don't understand the significance of either individual point of sale to an encyclopedia article. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed these bits, per peer review comments by Protonk. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I kept a reference to magicwandoriginal.com as that's the official website, but if you feel strongly I could remove that mention from in text as well. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems perfectly ok. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A question: Has there been a systematic review (as preferred by WP:MEDRS) of the studies involving the magic wand? We have a number of individual studies, but are there longer term assessments out there? If we have one for anorgasmia we can probably fold that into the discussion of Struck and Ventegodt. Their selection of the magic wand is perhaps interesting, but not enough to support singling the study out in a general summary. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying that section needs to follow MEDRS (and the way we refer to individual studies does follow MEDRS), just that I think if we have review articles we could condense things a bit and make it less like a "here are some studies which happened to use the magic wand" section. :) Protonk (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's been but I'd prefer to keep it mentioned at least somehow, perhaps as a brief mention without stating the conclusions, that it was studied by this group from this specialty and so forth, maybe just in a chronological format. — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do know, and I think it's already mentioned at least a little bit in the text, that yes, some of the studies were relied upon and mentioned again by other articles in secondary sources, so that'd be something also to mention in there somewhere. I'm honestly debating just merging the entire sect into the History section somehow, or perhaps just making it one big Academic research sect with chronological order and less detail per study. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk:The Struck 2008 study is cited in this review of literature:

IsHak, Waguih William; Anna Bokarius; Jessica K. Jeffrey; Michael C. Davis; Yekaterina Bakhta (October 2010). "Disorders of Orgasm in Women: A Literature Review of Etiology and Current Treatments". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7 (10). International Society for Sexual Medicine: 3254–3268. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01928.x. PMID 20584112.

Haven't been able to access full text of the article yet, but does that look like the sort of source you were describing, above? — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Protonk:Got access to that publication in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, it principally restates the results of the original research, and I've added it to the article, DIFF. Relevant quote from source: "The authors reported that 465 patients (93%) had an orgasm triggered by clitoral stimulation during masturbation". — Cirt (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the source you've added. I've removed some paragraphs from the research section, mostly focusing on paragraphs where the takeaway was "the magic wand was used to do this thing" so the article can point to the salient uses of the magic wand in research (compared to other massagers, as an iconic vibrator, specifically tested for anorgasmia, etc.). Protonk (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There might be other sources that also cover it as secondary sources and/or literature review. I'd rather we don't remove those other sources outright completely, maybe make it briefer and keep the sources but in one paragraph somehow. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making it more brief sounds good, I just wanted to take out the cases where we're picking up use of the device (in what could really be considered an intended capacity) in research where the device itself is incidental. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree but in some cases newer research builds specifically upon past studies, including the 2011 Marcus article. I added it back just as one-sentence instead of a whole paragraph. — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: how do we refer to the subject in the article? I'm seeing (outside the section which discusses name changes) "Magic Wand", "Hitachi Magic Wand", "Magic Wand by Hitachi". I'd either recommend referring to it always as "Hitachi Magic Wand" (as that keeps it consistent with the title) or listing "Magic Wand" as another name in the first sentence and using just "Magic Wand" throughout. Protonk (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you think is best? — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend listing "Magic Wand" and then just using that in the article. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alright, I've replaced all prior usage phrases with just "Magic Wand". — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking any better Protonk? Again I'd much rather trim down total size of text of certain sources rather than eliminate those sources completely, but I'm up for additional copy editing suggestions and ideas if you've got any further? — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]