Talk:Birth control/GA3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hildabast (talk · contribs) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I've started the process of reviewing this article. I've not been involved with this article previously. (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The lists below are being added to incrementally as I go through the article. It is close to being ready, but there are some things that are needed first.

Things to address to be a GA[edit]

  • Needs a few sentences on birth-spacing, contraception after birth (including lactation)
We state "Birth control also improves child survival in the developing world by lengthening the time between pregnancies.[6] In this population outcomes are worse when a mother gets pregnant within eighteen months of a previous delivery.[6][96]" already. We discuss breast feeding both with respect to how it decreases fertility and what birth control is safe "progestin-only pills may improve menstrual symptoms and can be used by breast-feeding women as they do not affect milk production." Will add some about contraception after birth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at my notes about this, it came about because the phrase is used in the introduction, and then never again. This happened because I'd skimmed it, then did some searching within text. I thought it would save time, but I think it's going to waste your time instead. I should go through the whole thing carefully before making comments. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The table in methods needs to be right as it will influence people's beliefs: many are listed as being worse with perfect use - it would be a good idea to check each number again too, since it looks as though something went wrong there.
I do not see any in the table that are listed as worse with perfect use? Can you clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Groan - it was me - I transcribed some backwards when cross-checking between table and text. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I rephrase a lot of stuff to avoid issues of plagiarism. Thus some of the terms are not entirely standard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Needs to refer to peri-menopausal issues: when birth control is no longer needed, menopause for women who've been on the pill for decades. Although this could wait for FA too. Shouldn't be held up over just this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildabast (talkcontribs) 17:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Added paragraph on special populations to the lead that addresses this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • IUDs: I'll make additional specific remarks here, but a major problem is that it describes the North American situation only, in terms of what kind there are. The WP on intrauterine contraceptive devices down in the text shows there are other types and shapes, and the German WP has a good picture of the commonly used copper-gold T-shaped device with filament removal strings (that list bit is a translation of the description). That one is so widely used, it needs a mention and picture.
Have added the image here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The WHO document [2] just discusses the two general types. While there are three general types per here [3] the inert form is hardly used anymore and thus IMO need not be mentioned in this overview article. All the copper and hormone IUDs are T shaped so the description given in this article would apply to the issue globally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
No, sorry, that's wrong. If you look at the German WP page, or even the English WP, you'll see they talk about other types. Here's a Cochrane review of frameless (which isn't a T) versus framed (which is a T). Here are the various Gynefix IUDs in Belgium, and in Germany. Note there's also the multiload in those links (that just wasn't the subject of that review). Here's the Copper-7 and the multiload at a medical expo in Germany. I'm not sure if the companies that couldn't sell their copper-7s in the US went on to sell them internationally, but that would be normal, too. Here you can buy a German-manufactured multiload off Alibaba. I'm not saying that the T-shaped isn't the dominant one - only that it is not the only one. The IUD-specific WP pages make that clear too. Hildabast (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are indeed correct. I have changed it to "usually small't"-shaped devices". THe less common shapes can be dealt with on the subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Consider including links to the 3 relevant WHO Reproductive Health Library instructional videos (laparoscopic tubes, vasectomy and IUD insertion).
IMO these videos would be best on the subpage dealing with the specific technique in question. Rather than within an overview article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Things that could be addressed now or in future to make it better than GA[edit]

  • The table in methods should be based on strong evidence, that can be updated as knowledge improves
Most of it is based on this textbook [4] which is reffed in the heading of the table. We can switch it over to the MMWR [5] which I have done mostly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review 2[edit]

Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge that I've had no role in creating or editing this article. This is an important article and I'm glad to see that it's at a stage where GA is considered. LT90001 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

General Comments[edit]











Society and culture[edit]




This review satisfies the Good Article review criteria (WP:GACR) and has undergone a review process. With no objections, I have re-promoted it to GA status. With an annual estimated readership of 540,000, thanks to Jmh649 and previous editors for producing such an important and comprehensive article. LT90001 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)