Talk:Vulva/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Expect initial comments within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SNUGGUMS for taking this on.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's kick this off with the infobox and lead section:

Infobox

• I'm concerned with how the source URL for File:Vertical clit hood piercing.jpg from File:Genital Diversity Expanded.jpg isn't working. If nobody can repair or replace the dead link, then maybe something else should be used. I will however assume good faith with the claims of own work from its other images File:Vulva with tiny labia minora.jpg, File:Pubic hair - Vulva unshaved.jpg, File:Vulva 01.jpg, File:Adult labia minora.jpg, and File:Vulva 5b.png as I can't find any evidence suggesting otherwise.

These files have not raised any query on the Commons page. I removed the one suggested later as it was queried.

• If "pudendum femininum" isn't going to be mentioned and cited within article body, then it should be sourced here

Changed this to linked pudendum muliebre and gave Wiktionary link - is this linking suitable. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Wiktionary has an entry for that at the moment :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Scratch that; I just found this, which is what it should've linked to. However, I don't know how to fix Wiktionary links myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

Lead

• There shouldn't be a colon after "include" within "features of the vulva include: the pudendal cleft"

Done

• I'm not sure if including menarche (first period) is redundant or not when adolescence is already mentioned in the lead

Not sure what this comment means - there is no mention of menarche on page. Changed adolescence to puberty as used in text

In other words, I'm on the fence as to whether it is adequately covered under puberty/adolescence or should be mentioned by name Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Have added it to puberty - was unsure before but think it seems worth mentioning.

• "Notable" from "Notable examples" is inappropriate editorializing and POV terminology; we can't include our personal opinions within article text. You could delete this one word entirely or perhaps merge it into the previous sentence to have something along the lines of "There has been an artistic reaction to this in various attempts to bring about a more positive and natural outlook, such as work from British, American, and Japanese artists."

Done

• Perhaps there should be some mention as to how this is commonly referred to as a "vagina" even though that anatomically refers to the internal component

Mentioned this at end of lead

More to come later on. I might do this section-by-section (or subsection in certain cases depending on length). Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Snuggums, I wondered about you taking on the GA review, but I know that you are more so used to reviewing popular culture/media articles (like film and celebrity articles), and you edited the Vulva article a few times. So I put the thought out of my head. Either way, I trust that you'll give a solid review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

None of my edits were major or I wouldn't have taken this on. It is definitely out of the scope of what I normally take on, but I wanted to add more diversity to my collection of reviews. I'll definitely be sure to examine this thoroughly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Structure

• File:Figure 28 02 02.jpg seems to be appropriately licensed
• "Other features include: the pudendal cleft, pubic hair, sebaceous glands, the vulval vestibule, and the urogenital triangle" also misuses a colon, and I'm not sure this sentence is even necessary when you discuss the terms later on in the section

Removed colon but kept the other one - seems legitimate usage? Sentence belongs in that section as its the general lead in to the other headed sections

• Try to alternate the image alignment; having every pic on the same side gets repetitive

The formatting doesn't lend itself easily to staggered files - some of the sections are smaller than the files and the effect would be sandwiched files. I moved the file in the larger arts section but may change this as it really ought to be facing the text. and I will experiment some more.

Mons pubis

• File:Schamspalte.jpg worries me when its source URL is also dead

Have removed file

• "Sometimes a variant term is used specifically to women—the mons veneris ('mound of Venus')" → "A variant term called the mons veneris ('mound of Venus') is sometimes used specifically for women"

Done

• "The lower part of the mons pubis is divided by a fissure – the pudendal cleft – which separates the mons pubis into the labia majora. The pudendal cleft is also known as the cleft of Venus (the Roman goddess of love). The clitoral hood and the labia minora protrude into the pudendal cleft in a variable degree. The mons and labia majora become covered in pubic hair at puberty." all needs to be sourced

Done

Labia

• The entire first paragraph is unreferenced

Done

• Not quite; you still haven't cited "The color of the outside skin of the labia majora is usually close to the overall skin color of the individual, although there is considerable variation. The inside skin and mucous membrane are often pink or brownish." Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed one sentence and changed and cited the other

• "it can be significantly larger or smaller"..... why not say something like "its size can vary" or "its size can widely vary"?

Changed and gave ref

Made a few minor edits and added ref

Vestibule

• File:1116 Muscle of the Female Perineum.png is A-OK to use
• There needs to be a space after the period after "male" in "bulbourethral glands in the male".

Done

Supporting muscles

• "The muscles are part of the urogenital triangle" needs to be cited.

Done

• Maybe it's because I don't have my own Flickr account and the URL hasn't been made available for public viewing, but File:Vulva collage 12.jpg's file source isn't showing me that pic. Either way, we should opt for something that's easily accessible to the general public.

The source is a website called gynodiversity.com whose mission in life is to create awareness and acceptance of the differences in female genitals, I would think that were it not acceptable to use the file somebody would have shouted by now. But i have sent an email query to them.

Perhaps you could link to them more directly if that specific image can be found on its site or use something else it shows Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Done

Snuggums - Changed the heading to muscles and gave bit of info on role in sex and ref.

Will look again when I have the chance later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No issues with the new addition there Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blood, lymph and nerve supply

• The entire second paragraph is unsourced

Done

SNUGGUMS have added to section

Variations

• By no means am I saying "Much of this variation lies in the significant differences in the size, shape, and colour of the labia minora. Though called the smaller lips they can often be of considerable size and may protrude outside the vagina or labia majora." is an inaccurate statement, but it seems like WP:SYNTH when its attributed reference doesn't elaborate on differences. You'll have to find a separate citation for it if this is to remain.

I shall look for a suitable ref - but surely the photos speak for themselves ?

Sadly no; it comes off as a personal interpretation when you have images without text describing such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Done

I'll work on "Development" in the next batch of comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Development

Prenatal development

• File:Genital tubercle 14 weeks.JPG is claimed as own work as the uploader's own ultrasound. I find no replica of this elsewhere and will assume good faith.
• File:Gray1119.png is A-OK as its image is from the public domain, being taken before 1923
• Everything except for the first sentence is unsourced; major issue!

Must admit have not been happy with the section - am in process of re-doing

Added redone section

Remove the space between "At this time the sexes still cannot be distinguished" and its reference, also you still need to cite "the labia minora, and clitoral hood are homologous, to the shaft skin of the penis, and the foreskin, respectively. The vestibular bulbs beneath the skin of the labia minora are homologous to the corpus spongiosum, the tissue of the penis surrounding the urethra. Bartholin's glands are homologous to the bulbourethral glands in males." Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed space

Added refs

Childhood

• No references in this subsection at all! O_O
• There should be a comma after "puberty" in "From then until puberty"

Made a few changes and added refs

The last citation in this section is malformatted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

Puberty

• "Premature pubarche may indicate underlying endocrine conditions"..... let's elaborate on this with examples (unless I've misread something and you already did so in subsequent text)

Have filled this out a little more

• Either I'm missing something, or this only supports this page's text "In prepubertal girls the skin of the vulva is thin and delicate, and its neutral pH makes it prone to irritation" of all the content it is attributed to here.
• "The production of the female sex hormone estradiol at puberty, causes the perineal skin to thicken by keratinising, and this reduces the risk of infection. Estradiol also causes further maturation of the vulva." needs referencing

yes - i know i added this on estradiol but cannot find the source - shall look some more

Added ref but last statement still needs ref

Added ref

Have added Pregnancy short section

I'm sure you can add more than that for "pregnancy"; two sentences isn't really enough for such a section. Maybe discuss things like increased blood flow and sensitivity. The last couple of sentences regarding estradiol are also still unsourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Added to pregnancy

Menopause

• Unless there's soemthing I misinterpreted, I see nothing here or its accompanying PDFs even suggesting the mon pubis is affected

Have changed the ref and the wording accordingly

I'm getting worried about verifiability at this point, but will continue regardless in the future. At least part of "Function and physiology" will follow next round. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this and this concerning an edit by Nigelj and revert by Iztwoz, I'm not going to get involved with this GA nomination, but I do want to note that there is a lack of focus on sexual pleasure in the article. In the "Function and physiology" section, which I think would benefit from an initial subheading such as "General" (to ensure that the initial content is not overlooked from the table of contents and that readers won't therefore think that the Sexual arousal subsection is the only content there), there is the following line: "The external organs of the vulva are richly innervated and provide pleasure when properly stimulated." But the article should have something on masturbation, oral sex, sex toys, and even intercrural sex. With regard to oral sex, for example, the vast majority of pleasure for a woman comes from oral sex performed on the vulva (including the clitoris)...rather than oral sex performed on the vagina. I thought about adding sexual pleasure material myself. But for now, I'll leave that up to others. Feel free to move my comment to the "Function and physiology" section of this GA nomination once SNUGGUMS creates it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Flyer22 Reborn - i really do not understand your input here. I do not understand your first sentence - 'regarding an edit and a valid revert you say you are not going to get involved with this GA nomination'. and then proceed to offer criticism. As far as i can see you have made one minor edit to the page on June 3 2015. Is there something i'm missing here? i would have thought that once a GA review has been started then it should be left to be completed. If it doesn't get through this will be the reviewer's decision with any recommendations made. If any of this other material you would see added, is still wanted you could then add it. Is the amount of coverage of an article a question for GA criteria? --Iztwoz (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if your comments were in the manner of adding to review.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Iztwoz these are the edits I have made to the article and these are the edits I have made to the article's talk page (since 2008). I haven't heavily edited this article, but I have obviously been watching it for years and have weighed in on matters brought up on its talk page. As for what is missing, I noted some of what is missing with my above post. Editors can obviously either take it or leave it. The material could be added while the GA review is going on since I don't think that SNUGGUMS would object to sexual pleasure material being added to the article as long as it is accurate and well-sourced. I offered an opinion on what I think the article is lacking while essentially noting that I will leave this review up to you to handle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Flyer meant she wasn't going to edit the article based on review input, though can understand how one might find her comment self-contradictory. Will assess that section when I have enough time to do more than glimpse through it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant, and I was going to clarify, but I thought it was clear that I meant I'm going to leave the review up to others. I'm not going to be leaving any more opinions in this review discussion either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Function and physiology

• This doesn't support "A number of different secretions are associated with the vulva, including urine, sweat, menses, sebum, and secretions from the vestibular glands and vaginal wall"
• "It is also found in other mammals" (I presume this refers to smegma) also needs to be sourced

The ref was placed at the relevant sentence. The preceding sentence is as common knowledge - none of the items mentioned could be argued against by anyone and they are all referred to on the page. i don't think it needs a ref. ? GA criteria does not call for every sentence to be cited. ?

Shall remove this ref to mammals

See WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability, which are imperative even if something seems like common knowledge. As a general rule of thumb, every paragraph should end with at least one citation, and multiple references should be used if needed to support all of a pragr Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Have filled out earlier material on secretions since these are all referred to on page and added refs

Sexual arousal

• While File:Aroused and Shaved Vulva.jpg is free of copyright, I personally feel File:Female sexual arousal.JPG is more useful since it shows a comparison of what vulvas are like when aroused vs. not aroused. Its use also is permitted for this page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree and changed

• For the caption, I would also note that one is aroused and the other isn't Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed

• "An orgasm may have as few as one or as many as 15 or more contractions, depending on its intensity" is quite a mouthful, maybe go with "The number of contractions that accompany an orgasm vary depending on its intensity".

Also agree and changed

Overall very good section, and I like the amount of detail presented. "Clinical significance" will come later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks snuggums i'm thinking of adding a little more to this in light of Flyer's comments

I suppose details on masturbation would be fine to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Have added short para

Clinical significance

Irritation

• "Inflammation as vulvitis, and vulvovaginitis can result from this causing irritation and pain" is unsourced

Done

• Many types of infection and other diseases including some cancers will cause irritation" also lacks a reference, and I would elaborate with examples of cancers

Gave ref but difficult to provide examples because evidently they may or may not cause irritation - changed will to may

Sexually transmitted infections

• It worries me how the source URL for File:SOA-Pediculosis-pubis.jpg isn't displaying its image

However the file must have been displayed at some point the organisation is clearly the source and the usage is licensed under GNU free doc license. ?

At this point, it would help to get an archived link that shows the pic or a new URL altogether Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• "and many of these affect the genitals" is redundant when you already have "Vulvar organs and tissues can become affected"

added to, to clarify, and ref

• "and gonorrhea that very often presents no symptoms but can result in discharge" needs to be cited

Done

• "Scabies also known as the seven year itch is caused by another ectoparasite, the mite Sarcoptes scabiei, giving intense irritation" also needs a source, plus it seems more appropriate to have "seven year itch" in quotation marks than italics, and there should be commas after "Scabies" as well as "itch"

Done and added ref

• While I personally am well aware that "The practice of safe sex can greatly reduce the risk of infection from many sexually transmitted pathogens" is true, we can't pull claims out of nowhere, and perhaps you could note that they don't entirely eliminate the risk.

Have added ref - kept the wording it does state greatly reduce the risk. Added sentence and ref

Cancer

• Given how you discuss the way Squamous cell carcinoma typically affects the labia, let's do the same with vulval melanoma

Added to

• Having multiple very short paragraphs here makes the text look choppy; I'd merge these

Merged paras

Other

• See above note regarding choppiness of super short paragraphs

Merged some paras on skin disorders

• "Vulvar vestibulitis usually affects pre-menopausal women" is missing a citation

Added ref

Childbirth

• Nothing on the treatment for any tears caused?

Added sutures and ref

Surgery

• "Some of these procedures are also carried out as sex reassignment surgeries" needs to be referenced

Done

That's another section done. "Society and culture" is up next in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Society and culture

Altering the female genitalia

• I don't think "Muff March" should be italicized in the caption for File:Muff March Harley Street 2.jpg, which otherwise is perfectly fine

Done

• Unless I've missed something, this only talks about Rwandans and says nothing about Khoikhoi practices.

Added refs

• We've got a faulty URL that links to the generic home page rather than a specific article

Changed ref added others

• Living in the Shade of Islam: A Comprehensive Reference of Theory and Practice only seems to support detail on Islamic practices, not French waxing

Added ref

• File:Christina and Nefertiti piercings.jpg is derived from File:Christinas and Nefertiti genital piercings.jpg, which is claimed as own work. Assuming good faith since I can't find the image anywhere outside of Wikipedia. However, I do think you should specify which piercings are which in its caption.

Changed caption

• You should establish ACOG's abbreviation as "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists" upon the first mention of the full term before using the shorter term; i.e. have the text read "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)"

Done

• It looks odd for File:Gynaecology-1822.jpg to leak into multiple sections (though this is thankfully public domain as it came out before 1923)

Moved file down

Etymology

• I'd merge these two paragraphs to avoid choppy text

Done

• "probably from the Old Latin volvere ('to roll'; lit. 'wrapper')" isn't supported here, and we should opt for concrete statements rather than speculation anyway

Changed and added refs

• "The naming clearly influenced the general perception of the vulva and this is shown in depicted gynaecological procedures. The examiner shown in the Obstetrical examination dated 1822, is adopting the compromise procedure where the woman's genitals cannot be seen." is unsourced (I'm mainly worried about the procedure's name which also shouldn't be italicized), and "clearly" is inappropriate editorializing

Changed wording added link in caption - procedure details in file description and also on linked page in caption, removed italics

We just need to cite the last two sentences (especially for procedure as well as the influence on naming), Iztwoz, and then this will be ready for promotion! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS have added refs to section hopefully the refs can encompass the uncited sentence too - it is a bit self-evident?

Not quite self-evident for naming bits of how procedure is carried out (not everybody had such previous knowledge). Anyway, congrats on getting this to GA level, now passing!

Alternative terms

• This would be a good place to discuss how the vulva is commonly called a vagina (even if not what the term anatomically refers to as a whole)

Could only mange a sentence and ref

• Maybe other common slang like "muff" (especially given the "muff march" pic above), "snatch", and "cooch" could be included here

Added muff and other item easily cited

• Don't italicize "cunt", "pussy", or "fanny"

Done

• "As with nearly any aspect of the human body involved in sexual or excretory functions" is completely unnecessary; just focus on this body part

Agree and changed

• If talking about other uses of "pussy", then may as well mention how it can refer to a cat

Done

I'll get to the "Religion and art" subsection as well as its images and the references later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Religion and art

• File:Loz roku1.png seems fine to use, as it is claimed as own work and I don't see this specific pic anywhere outside of Wikipedia
• See above comment on really short paragraphs making text look choppy

Have merged some

• "these models likely served as some form of amulets, possibly to protect against impotency" sounds rather speculative; try going with something more concrete or just delete entirely if you can't include anything definitive

Agree and removed

• "was the first realistic painting of a vulva to be exhibited in Western art" isn't even suggested here

Have reworded

• I'm not sure if "The Great Wall of Vagina" should be italicized

The other two works are - think it would look odd for just one to be different ?

• "However, the misleading use of vagina as a synonym for the vulva is continued" is irrelevant to this section, which focuses on the depictions themselves rather than terminology (unlike "alternative terms")

Kept in alternative terms

• Be sure to also use something like this for the use of "vagina" to refer to vulva. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do we really need so many images lumped at the bottom like that? Per WP:NOTGALLERY (WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files), we're not supposed to just include pics for decorative purposes. Either way, I will note the following:

• File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg is fine to use
• File:SheelaWiki.jpg doesn't seem to contain its image in the website provided (major problem)
• File:Vulvas prehistóricas.jpg and File:Vulve stylisée.JPG are own work, though "possible" makes them sound too uncertain
• No copyright concerns for File:NAMA Phallus ailé.jpg
• I'm guessing that File:Meister des Hildegardis-Codex 001.jpg is supposed to depict the universe being contained within a vulva, but it either way doesn't really demonstrate what they actually look like (especially compared to other images)
• Assuming good faith with File:Vulva-handsign-Yoni-mudra.svg and File:Mahadev temple (2).jpg as I can't find any signs of copyright violations

Had placed images there as would not easily format and they were all relevant to that section. Have removed some per your suggestions and put others in Additional images section. Have given link in Sheela na gig file

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, Iztwoz. What you were supposed to do was place a URL containing this specific image in here, or maybe replace the file with what this contains. I'm also fine with deleting the image altogether. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Made some changes to section and rm file ?

References

• ALL references should include authors and publish dates when known, and online sources need work names as well as accessdates. Date formats should be consistent in either DMY or MDY format per MOS:DATE (WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates, months and years).
• "Huffington Post" → HuffPost
• Don't italicize "philschatz.com"
• "medlineplus.gov" should read "MedlinePlus" without the ".gov" or italics
• "www.nhsdirect.wales.nhs.uk" → NHS Direct Wales, and this also shouldn't be italicized
• "www.mayoclinic.org" → Mayo Clinic (without italics)
• "www.dermnetnz.org" → DermNet NZ, don't italicize this, and "DermNet New Zealand" shouldn't be in its article title parameter
• "www.merriam-webster.com" should read Merriam-Webster, but I'm not sure about italics when this isn't from any specific edition of their printed dictionary
• "www.cdc.gov" → Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and not italicized
• "who.int" is supposed to read World Health Organization and don't italicize it
• "www.cancerresearchuk.org" → Cancer Research UK (again no italics)
• Not sure if this is a legitimate reference

It's a .org not a .com - its only aim is to provide information

• "The" is part of the title for The BMJ, and remove "British Medical Journal" from that bit; we don't need two different names
• Something about the "vagina" reference from Oxford Dictionary is malformatted
• "www.musee-orsay.fr" should read Musée d'Orsay, and don't italicize it
• Daily Mirror (aka Mirror Online) is a subpar source; I'd axe that

Fixed all the above - (thanks for the education)

Overall

• Prose: Decent, but still choppy in places
• Referencing: Not everything is supported by given references, also there is a questionable source while another is definitely no good. I should also note that this doesn't even suggest that "The Great Wall of Vagina" purpetuates the use of "vagina" when people mean vulva; it only uses the terms interchangably without commenting on the use of terminology. A better piece talking about such use can be found here, which I recommend using. However, one thing I should note is that when something is mentioned and cited within the article body, it doesn't have to be cited within the lead as that's supposed to summarize the rest of the article's content.
• Coverage: Speculation is unnecessary, and should be cut if it can't be turned into something more definitive.
• Neutrality: No detectable bias
• Stability: Nothing of concern
• Media: Questionable pics and licensing still need to be addressed (potentially by removing/replacing certain images altogether)
• Verdict: Placing the article on hold for seven days starting now. I feel the remaining concerns can feasibly be resolved within that time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.