Wikipedia:Peer review/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Disabling conditions like spinal cord injury do not erase a person's sexuality but do have profound implications for most injured people's sex lives. I'm hoping to improve this article for an eventual FAC, so any thoughts on what it needs would be much appreciated. Please let me know if there are any shortcomings in terms of clarity, comprehensiveness, organization, focus, accuracy, or anything else. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it for you. I am not sure how to assess the referencing, this format is not one I use. But I will double check the links, spelling, grammar and such. Good luck-this article has the potential of doing a lot of good. Best Regards,
- Bfpage |leave a message 01:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Terrific, thank you so much! delldot ∇. 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Bfpage |leave a message 01:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Notices left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. delldot ∇. 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Some tips from me. Thanks for asking me to review. It's an impressively detailed and referenced article that is almost of journal standard. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if it is possible to structure the article slightly more in line with WP:MEDMOS. The subject is not that easy to fit with the outline, but it might be possible to group together the treatments/interventions under one "level 2" header.
- Makes sense. Maybe call it "Management and interventions"? Let me see if I can restructure it. delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think now? delldot ∇. 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good stuff. I imagine that some of the sections might benefit from such an approach as well. Do you prefer to discuss the causes/mechanisms of each phenomenon in context, or could they be grouped into a specific section? JFW | T@lk 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Which phenomena do you have in mind? One idea might be to have a Fertility section that covers both ejaculation and pregnancy. Then that could be right above Management and interventions which covers anejaculation. I don't know if that would be an improvement. delldot ∇. 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good stuff. I imagine that some of the sections might benefit from such an approach as well. Do you prefer to discuss the causes/mechanisms of each phenomenon in context, or could they be grouped into a specific section? JFW | T@lk 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think now? delldot ∇. 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Maybe call it "Management and interventions"? Let me see if I can restructure it. delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm unsure why the "note 1" is being used. It mentions a specific study that ran over 18 months but it is associated with a secondary source. Is it necessary?
- This was kind of a janky fix. The GA reviewer wanted something more specific than "over time" for a similar sentence. I was trying to reconcile "this usually happens" with a specific study. I can reword. delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- External links are usually not crucial, but is there a page somewhere on an official site that is sufficiently authoritative to serve as further reading?
- Added some. delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain that this subject has been portrayed in popular culture, although I can't think of specific examples. Are there any celebrities with SCI who have been specifically public about this (thinking about Christopher Reeve on Larry King in 1998[1]). I suspect there's probably no secondary source that summarises these depictions and checks them for factual content...
- Yeah, seems like info is sparse given the personal nature of the topic. You're thinking of an "In popular culture" section? Maybe a discussion of portrayals in fiction? There would probably be plenty of info about stereotypes (e.g. that people with SCI are asexual) that could flesh out some kind of "cultural context" or "in society" section, what do you think? delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I try to avoid "in popular culture" as section title (I prefer "society and culture" as a heading), and it can be fiendishly difficult to find strong sources. I'm sure the article will survive FAC without a list of celebrities with SCI who have discussed their sexuality in public, or a study of depictions in books and films! JFW | T@lk 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll start collecting info for a society and culture section and see if it's enough to be worth it. I sort of think that info might be better incorporated into other sections though. delldot ∇. 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- I try to avoid "in popular culture" as section title (I prefer "society and culture" as a heading), and it can be fiendishly difficult to find strong sources. I'm sure the article will survive FAC without a list of celebrities with SCI who have discussed their sexuality in public, or a study of depictions in books and films! JFW | T@lk 13:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, seems like info is sparse given the personal nature of the topic. You're thinking of an "In popular culture" section? Maybe a discussion of portrayals in fiction? There would probably be plenty of info about stereotypes (e.g. that people with SCI are asexual) that could flesh out some kind of "cultural context" or "in society" section, what do you think? delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback Jfdwolff, that's very helpful! delldot ∇. 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if it is possible to structure the article slightly more in line with WP:MEDMOS. The subject is not that easy to fit with the outline, but it might be possible to group together the treatments/interventions under one "level 2" header.