Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oligospermia and Oligozoospermia

Could someone update the Oligospermia page? It seems to say that Oligo- and Oligozoo-spermai are two distinct conditions, while my Stedman's lists them as synonymous. I would do this myself but, I have neither the time or the expertise at present. Ibrmrn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Parturition/Childbirth

Sorry if I sound very ignorant asking this, but the exact topic of parturition/childbirth is included under pregnancy or fertility, or is it being seen as beyond the scope of current task force? Or is it that I can take the liberty of adding this topic to the already existing list?

Kindly clarify. I didn't expand the above list as I wasn't sure if doing so would require consensus. —KetanPanchaltaLK 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this task force will include all aspects of reproduction, including gynecology, fertility, contraception, conception, embryology, obstetrics, parturition, and any topics between I may have missed. The initial focus on birth control is because that is the primary interest of Lyrl, the person who proposed this task force. You could consider birth control as the current collaboration effort of the task force, but that shouldn't preclude other topics from being added and worked on. --Scott Alter 08:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Condom to FA?

Lyrl (or anyone else), Can you give us a quick idea of what you think it might take to get Condom up to FA status? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been involved in the FA process for any article, so I'm a little unsure about the whole thing. That said, it had a peer review a while back, and I formatted what I got out of the peer review into a to-do list. Two of the reviewer's concerns (one of the ancient history claims was dubious, and there was no coverage of how the pill and AIDS impacted condom use) were addressed by my recent expansion of the history section; the remaining items are still listed at Talk:Condom/to do. I also think the article would read better if the (now very long) history section were spun out into its own article, leaving just a summary-style within condom. LyrlTalk C 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've never dealt with FA status before, either, but presumably there are some guidelines around somewhere. We'll find them and see if we can make any sense of them.
I see what you mean about the history section tending to dominate the article right now. A sub-article might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link to the FA criteria. Presumably the history spin off and the /to do list needs dealing with first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article tagging / waiting on unassessed article backlog

WhatamIdoing had commented that there were ~1800 unassessed articles she was working on with Outriggr's script. Because task forces break that script, we should not set up a system to tag articles belonging to our task force until that backlog has been cleared (at which point doing assessments by hand will not be so burdensome).

I poked around a little to see if I could track the progress of this backlog. The only thing I was able to find is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality statistics, which only lists a handful of unassessed articles. I don't think that was what WhatamIdoing was referring to. Could someone point me in the right direction? LyrlTalk C 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either which articles WhatamIdoing was referring to either. Maybe the Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles? In any case, if Outriggr's script does break, it would only be on articles that were already given task force parameters. So, if the task force parameters were only added to assessed articles, it shouldn't effect WhatamIdoing's effort to assess unassessed articles. If this is the case, it would be easily remedied by assessing articles when adding task force tags. Additionally, all of the scripts the perform article tagging are going to need to be modified soon due to the addition of {{C-Class}}. Maybe the task force bug will be fixed in the next release of the script.
And if you haven't noticed yet, the technical side is all ready for tagging. By adding "| Reproductive=yes | ReproductiveImp=xxx" to {{WPMED}}, articles would be added to Category:Reproductive medicine task force articles, the proper sub-categories of Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality & Category:Reproductive medicine articles by importance, and added to the assessment table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Reproductive medicine articles by quality statistics. "ReproductiveImp" is the importance of the article to the task force - so an article can have one importance for the Medicine project and another importance for the task force. If this is left out, the importance will default to the project's importance parameter ("Importance"). Once WhatamIdoing gives the okay, I'll add this information to {{WPMED}}, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. --Scott Alter 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles is indeed what I'm targeting. You'll notice that it's been shrinking recently.
The script has already been modified to include the C-class. We may need to adjust our guidelines for it, and of course everything that is now classed as "Start" needs to be reviewed. (But that's all for later...)
I'm glad all the code is in place. It'll likely take at least a week for me to finish this. (Y'all feel free to help out...) But the other side is this: We're here to write an encyclopedia. Don't let a relatively unimportant administrative task distract you from writing and improving the actual articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
So is it indeed alright to tag items with the reproductive=yes tag as long as they already have an importance? Zodon (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that should be just fine. I'd appreciate it if you also double-checked the main project's ratings as you went. Something that was assessed even a few weeks ago could be shockingly out of date by now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, having thought about it longer, I have no idea whether it will be a problem. But try it, and I'll squawk if it becomes a problem. We can always temporarily revert the code if necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found a tool for determining the page views of an article: http://stats.grok.se/en/

It's new to me, at least, for others it may be old hat. But, I thought it might be useful when we get around to prioritizing articles. Of the birth control articles, condom is by far the most viewed at around 5000 hits per day. I think the next highest is the COCP article at a little over 1000 (I'm surprised it's that far behind condom!), followed by coitus interruptus and intrauterine device at a little under 1000 per day (it surprised me that withdrawal ranked so high up there). LyrlTalk C 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing task force tags

In case anyone else is interested, we are talking about changing the task force tags in {{WPMED}} to being all lowercase, with dashes to separate words e.g., "| reproductive=yes | reproductive-imp=xxx". Please direct any comments about the change to the talk page for the WPMED template. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This change has been made. Zodon (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Section order and naming in contraception articles

Many of the birth control articles have a "history" section, and the consensus seems to be to put this at the top. This also follows WP:MEDMOS#Drugs. There are a few articles that have "terminology" section at the top, where there is concern readers may need that information to understand the rest of the article (calendar-based methods, fertility awareness, cervical cap)

The condom article then has a "varieties" section, and the cervical cap and IUD articles have a "types" section in the same position. However, similar sections in other articles ("types" in diaphragm and IUS, and "formulations" in COCP) are further down the page. I'm leaning toward preferring the higher position, right after history; this would follow WP:MEDMOS#Drugs for "available forms". I'm unsure of how to standardize the section name, though: should they all be the same (varieties?), or should hormonal methods stay with "formulations"?. Others' thoughts?

Many articles have "effectiveness" and "mechanism of action" sections next to each other (e.g. COCP, POP, diaphragm), or a combined "effectiveness and mechanism of action" section (IUD). An exception is emergency contraception, which has "effectiveness" near the top and "mechanism" near the bottom of the article. I believe effectiveness is one of the more important characteristics of user-dependent birth control methods, and would also like to see this section near the top of the article, right after "varieties". The "mechanisms" can go quite a bit further down (WP:MEDMOS#Drugs has it listed eighth), and for user-independent methods (where typical effectiveness is over 99%) the effectiveness section could probably go next to mechanisms. I'd like to hear other opinions on this, though.

Some articles have "fitting" or "use" sections (COCP, IUS, condom); if both (diaphragm and cervical cap), they are found next to each other. This would probably be equivalent to "procedure" in tubal ligation. Correct use relates closely to effectiveness for user-dependent methods; I would like to see it just after effectiveness in those articles. Explaining what is involved with a method may also help readers understand potential complications or side effects, so it would be nice to have this section before the complications/side effect section.

Some articles have sections "advantages", "disadvantages", "benefits and drawbacks", "potential concerns". Relatedly, some articles have sections "complications", "cautions and warnings", "side effects and complications", "contraindications", "cautions and contraindications", "side effects", "health issues", and "safety"; COCP and IUD have serious effects listed under one name, and less serious effects listed under another name. I'm not sure how to standardize the names. For order, WP:MEDMOS#Drugs has "contraindications"/"adverse events" right after "available forms". I would like to have this a little lower, after the "use"/"fitting"/"procedure" section as I explained in the previous paragraph. And then maybe the advantages/disadvantages sections after that?

Some articles have a "prevalence", "popularity", or "worldwide use" section. I would like to standardize this name to "prevalence". Placement - after the sections discussed above? And, lastly, "mechanisms" (as discussed above), followed by "society and culture" (not sure of the exact name), and then (if applicable) "research"?

That's a lot to discuss all at once, but I'm not sure the topic lends itself to discussion of smaller bits (though am open to suggestions). LyrlTalk C 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Varieties vs. Formulations vs. Types vs. Available forms
These aren't exactly identical terms, so I think we want to use appropriate judgement in each article. However, I think that "Types" is probably a generally applicable term and could be used in all articles about devices and most articles about medications, and at least some articles about behavioral birth control methods. Unlike pharmaceutical formulation, it also has the advantage of being perfectly intelligible to the general reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion (with each section optional): Terminology; History; Classification; Physiology; Complications and contraindications; Additional images; References; External links. --Arcadian (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Project scope

A general concern raised at the doctor's mess is also relevant to this task force.

How "medical" should articles be to be included in this task force? Menstrual cycle is important to reproduction, but its more of a physiology article than a medical article. Menstrual disorder would be a medical topic, though (as such disorders are often treated by health providers). Would "menstrual cycle" be excluded from this task force but "menstrual disorder" included? Similarly, pregnancy test and obstetric ultrasonography are medical procedures, but early pregnancy factor is an article about a protein. Would "early pregnancy factor" be excluded from this task force? Or, do members want to include both strictly medical as well as related background articles in this task force? LyrlTalk C 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could define ourselves more narrowly than WPMED as a whole, but probably shouldn't be more expansive. Right now, WPMED is accepting physiology articles largely because there's no better project in existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The initial proposal made it sound like it would cover reproduction related material out of other projects, like Sexology and sexuality and pharmacology. Many of the birth control methods might be more properly categorized as pharmacology. Likewise, material about sexual practices relating to reproductive health, abortion, etc. is possibly more strictly sociology. There is also the matter of how to handle legal aspects related to reproductive medicine (reproductive rights, laws governing practice of reproductive medicine, etc.).
I don't think the taskforce should be too strict about only medicine articles, but don't feel strongly about it. If folks want it more strictly medical, I won't object. But if so, maybe we can come up with a little more guidance to aid categorization.
A few examples that it might help to get some feedback on (i.e. should they be reproductive taskforce, or not).
Early pregnancy factor was categorized because it was listed on beginning of pregnancy controversy as a possible test for fertilization.
United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries was categorized because it allowed doctors in the U.S. freedom to offer contraceptives, and may be a significant step in the history of contraception in the U.S..
Also, what do folks think about things like Family planning, One child policy, or Guttmacher Institute - should they be in the task force or not?
All of the articles you link here are already tagged by the main WPMED project. WPMED tends to define medicine fairly broadly, including, among other things, all medications, all medical conditions, and laws and government policies that affect medical practice. My point could perhaps be stated more clearly like this: Whatever is tagged as belonging to this taskforce will automatically and unavoidably be tagged by WPMED, so we should not include things that would clearly be rejected by WPMED as a whole. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Zodon recently tagged all of those articles with the WPMED tag ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). They were not already tagged, which was why I had started this discussion.
I think another relevant example article is human chorionic gonadotropin. It's a protein used in pregnancy tests, like "early pregnancy factor". Should the hCG article be tagged as part of WPMED? Or does the pregnancy test article sufficiently cover the relevant medical information on hCG, but not EPF? LyrlTalk C 02:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my post wasn't clearer, the reason I could say why some of those were tagged as reproductive taskforce was because I tagged them. That is also part of why I asked about those articles in particular. (Obviously I think they made sense as WPMED & reproductive, but since scope question was raised they seemed like other things that there might be question on, so wanted to see what others thought.) Zodon (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Early pregnancy factor is something that I would tag as WPMED because we're the closest related WikiProject. If a WikiProject Human Physiology existed, then I might choose that in preference -- but no such thing exists, and the 1.0 team would ultimately like every article to "belong" somewhere. If the RepMed task force wants to stay more "focused" than that, then it doesn't have to accept physiology articles. It can be WPMED without being RepMed. It is always useful to remember that project banners are not a replacement for categorization. If RepMed does not choose to be responsible for EPF, then it need not be included in RepMed's scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

EPF should be in Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology just like hCG is (I'll go add it now); I don't think its inclusion in WPMED is required for it to belong somewhere. I would lean toward not including these types of articles, but don't feel strongly about it. WhatamIdoing doesn't seem to feel strongly either way, and Zodon seems to find value in including them. So to me, it looks like the consensus it towards including these kinds of articles. Thanks for providing input. LyrlTalk C 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Help and advice needed

Hi. I need some advice. I deleted Parents Via Egg Donation Organization, which was basically restating the boxed text from here. However, the author, User:Marnad1963 has contacted me and wishes the article reinstated if possible. Being helpful, I'm looking at ways forward that don't scare such contributors off, without obviously breaching our policies. It was pointed out to me that we have articles such as:

Some of which may be of equal worth as the organization which was the subject of the article I deleted. I have asked for any sources so that an article could be written on Parents Via Egg Donation Organization, and am waiting for the user to reply, but would be interested in hearing more expert knowledge on whether there is any bias in the articles listed or whether they may also be speedy deletion candidates?

Thanks for your time. Hiding T 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The other organizations all seem to be notable, and I'm not sure the Parents Via Egg Donation Organization is. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Has PVEDO provided a list of independent, third-party reliable sources for you, such as a couple of newspaper articles or the like? If such sources exist, they'll have them. If such sources don't exist, then they do not meet the minimum criteria for having a Wikipedia article about their organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
They are in the process of trying to find some. Hiding T 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
When and if they do, then we can revisit this issue. Until then, the article appears to have been properly deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't heard anything more as yet, so I'll put this one to rest. Hiding T 10:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No. It's not independent (it's a press release, not an article a journalist unrelated to the organization decided to write), and there's just one of it (so fails the "multiple" requirement). It's hard for new organizations to get into Wikipedia. As their organization acquires a few more years under its belt, it will almost certainly start accumulating the kind of press attention that editors here want to see before accepting an article on the organization. But for now, it does not appear that Wikipedia is the place for them. LyrlTalk C 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough. They've indicated they have had contact from The Oregonian in Portland and the Chicago Tribune, so I've told them to let me know what happens with them. They'd be reliable enough for a stub at the least, wouldn't they? Hiding T 14:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stubbiness or not is only determined by whether people are interested in working on the article. Notability determines only whether an article is allowed to be created, and has no effect on length. Being the subject of two articles in major newspapers would probably meet the notability criteria (I can't say for sure as I'm not active in that part of Wikipedia); being mentioned in the articles but not a subject of them would be a more difficult case to argue. LyrlTalk C 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive medicine main article

What should the heading Reproductive medicine link to? I just noticed that it is a redirect to Reproductive endocrinology and infertility. While that article is certainly part of reproductive medicine, it does not seem to give a good overview of the field. At the moment I can't think of an article that seems exactly right to be/evolve into an overview of reproductive medicine. Reproductive health might be a reasonable candidate. The Obstetrics and gynaecology article makes some claims to subsuming some of the other areas of reproductive medicine, but that seems peculiar, since reproductive medicine deals with both sexes, whereas strictly OB/Gyn is just for women (I would have classed OB/Gyn as a subset of Reproductive medicine, rather than the other way around.). While Reproductive medicine is not heavily visited, it is used in Template:medicine. Since I don't have a good answer, I thought the task force seemed like a reasonable place to get some input. Thoughts? Suggestions of where it should be directed? Thanks. Zodon (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reproductive health" seems like the best candidate for now. As that article grows, hopefully a "reproductive medicine" article can be spun out from it at some future point. LyrlTalk C 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have changed "Reproductive medicine" to point to Reproductive health. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I started the Reproductive medicine article; "reproductive medicine" is the medical field, "reproductive health" is the goal, and "reproductive endocrinology and infertility" the specialty training for physicians. Ekem (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive health template

I have been thinking about a navigation template for articles on reproductive health. So I created the template {{Reproductive health}}. I haven't linked it to any of the articles yet, thought I would publicize it here to get feedback and give a chance to polish it up a bit before it goes live. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's in good shape. I didn't see any major articles missing from the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the knowledge to give a thorough review, but it looks like it will be quite useful in linking the listed articles. I look forward to seeing it live. LyrlTalk C 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing for taskforce?

Would it be worth while getting a cleanup listing for the task force (like this one Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cleanup listing, but just articles in category:Reproductive medicine task force articles? (Looks like we can get a report generated by just including a template on the project page. Unfortunately the reports are only generated every few months, and at the moment it is 3-4 months old). Zodon (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reports are generated every time there's a database dump, which last happened in October 2008 and which is next scheduled to happen sometime after the database dumping program is entirely replaced, because en.wikipedia.org is too large for the existing software to handle.
I think it's a great idea, but I'm not sure whether it can be done for task forces. Do you want to ask the author? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It can be done for task forces (we just need to supply the task force category as an argument to the subscription template). I think that placing the following incantation on the taskforce page would do the job. {{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|wgcat=Reproductive medicine task force articles}} (See User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription) Zodon (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Added to project page. Zodon (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC notification

Not that I'm expecting a big stampede of support or anything, but there's an RFC going on here that may be of interest. The issue is whether the article on abortion should describe or show what is aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

input from this task force requested

at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Nadya Suleman aka "Octo-mom" Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce-imp ranking

The WPMED template was recently changed so that taskforce importance was longer inherited from WPMED importance. (i.e. formerly, if taskforce-imp is not specified, then the taskforce importance would be the same as the general WPMED importance. After the change, the taskforce importance is "None" if it is not specified). (See WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Statistics.)

The old behavior can be restored for those taskforces that desire it. (See template talk:WPMED#Taskforce importance.)

As a result of my inquiry about this, the old behavior has been restored for the reproductive medicine taskforce. Since very few articles in this taskforce have a taskforce-imp specified, that seemed reasonable. (Note that the assessment statistics templates have not yet been updated by the bot since the change.) Wanted to let folks know about the change in case there were other opinions about which way this taskforce should handle importance rating. (i.e. if think should change handling, we can discuss it here.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gestational diabetes

Can we do a little informal peer review here for Gestational diabetes? What do you think it would take to get this to GA status? What content needs added? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Graphic on project page

Recently a cross-section diagram of the male genital anatomy Image:Male reproductive system.png was added to the top of the project page. Since several of the other taskforces use the same graphic as is used in WPMED, I changed the graphic to the sperm and egg micrograph Image:Sperm-egg.jpg that is in the template.

Don't see putting in a lot of graphics on the project page (just slows load times, etc.), but if going to use anatomy diagrams, should cover both sexes. Zodon (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Amniocentesis

Amniocentesis is incomplete and vastly under-referenced. It also seems kind of important, relative to not just this task force, but to the whole encyclopedia. Does anyone here know much about it and want to improve it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirm low urine Na+ in prerenal azotemia due to CAH

Could someone confirm:

"2.low urine sodium < 10 ( because kidney saves sodium and water,hence low urine sodium and increase urine osmolarity)" [6]

I thought that in a case like CAH due to 21 alphaOHase deficiency there was a salt wasting dehydration that led to prerenal azotemia. Would this result not result in excess natriuresis? Ibrmrn (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Condom

I think we should nominate Condom for WP:Good article status. I think it's likely to sail through the process (assuming the reviewer is looking at a non-vandalized copy), and there's no good reason for it not to be GA status. Does anyone have an opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was actually hoping (many months ago) to get condom to FA status. But then I got sick and couldn't work on it... yeah, it would be nice to see condom be designated a GA. LyrlTalk C 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

HIV GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed HIV for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Condom template

I've made Template:Condom. I would appreciate any feedback on formatting, article inclusion, and whether it would be useful on the pages of included articles, specifically the condom article and the brand name articles. LyrlTalk C 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hormonal contraception: reassessment request

I've recently expanded the hormonal contraception article, and it's no longer start-class. I'm requesting that outside editor reassess it. I'm thinking it's B-class now; if it's deemed C-class I would appreciate some tips on what it would need to make B. LyrlTalk C 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, as I understand the standards, #Types#Combined should have a ref in it, but other than that, it meets the B-class standards. Given the relative unimportance of this missing ref (and the likelihood that you can trivially produce several), I've upgraded it to B class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting Condom to FA level

I pestered a couple of editors a while back, while Condom's GA status was pending, and have a few suggestions for what it might take to reach FA. These are all "suggestions", not "requirements", primarily from one editor:

  1. It might be nice to have a section about "availability". Are they banned in some countries? In the UK, they are available free from family planning clinics (though I don't know what % of usage that accounts for). To what extent is cost a factor in their usage? Condom machine could be mentioned/linked here.
  2. Use and non-use in sex work (under Condom#Prevalence?): Who pays for the condom, economic pressures for non-use[7], "partner categorization", and serosorting are all possible topics to add.
  3. Social stigma: Associated with promiscuity/non-monogamous relationships.[8] Condoms can be an embarrassing purchase[9] and perhaps for that reason (possibly others) they are often security tagged in supermarkets. This aspect is noted in the well known (in the UK) Madness song house of fun. Being seen carrying a condom might lead to judgement about one's promiscuity or expectations.
  4. The two bulleted lists could be converted to prose.
  5. Some of the "other uses" might need to be culled as being insufficiently important/WP:DUE].

Any other thoughts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought on cost - low startup cost and low method cost per use are advantages of the method, however much of the cost comes from method failures. While inexpensive for short term use, when used for a few years, IUD etc. become more cost effective. (Trussell - Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in US.) Although the specifics of costs vary by location, the general pattern (most of cost in method failures, various forms of LARC more cost effective in longer term) probably applies.
Also if there was anything general enough to be said apropos cost effectiveness as STD preventive adjunct to other contraceptives (e.g. LARC). (Source is again Trussell - the followup to the 1995 cost effectiveness article.) Zodon (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it also depends on the number of uses. Most of these things are standardized for "average married couples" (three potential pregnancy risks per week), and human behavior is known to be highly variable on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome

Resolved
 – the disputed edit was reverted by an administrator after sockpuppet investigations

Please review this disputed edit which removed several peer reviewed secondary sources, a dispute tag, almost all mention of birth defects, all mention of immunotoxicity, the entire "Diagnosis" section, and was a 3RR violation from a likely banned user as well. I hope you will please look in particular at the second paragraph in the Epidemiology section removed prior to the table. 208.54.5.57 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you might be conflating "Gulf War syndrome" with "Any and all health problems affecting people deployed to the Gulf War." They are not synonymous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent split and renaming of IUD articles

Recently the article on IUDs was split into two sections (Intrauterine device, and the confusingly named IUD with copper). Also, the article on Intrauterine system was renamed to the much less frequently used IUD with progestogen. I think both these changes should be reverted, but would appreciate input from other taskforce members. Please comment on the talk pages of the related articles. Talk:IUD with progestogen#Article name and Talk:IUD with copper#Why split IUD into 3 articles?. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Before March 11th, there were two articles (not counting Paragard and Dalkon Shield): Intrauterine device and Intrauterine system. The articles at that time (prior to March 11th) asserted that the use of "IUD" implied copper, and "IUS" implied progestogen. However, there is very little support for that approach to the terminology (it is at best a regionalism), and it was causing great confusion for our readers and editors (see the talk page at Talk:IUD with copper for context.) This approach was not only wrong, but dangerous, in that the infobox implied that a IUD with progestogen could be left in for "12+" years. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions, "Where there is a dispute over a name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations rather than conduct original research. Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought." The preferred names are those provided by the World Health Organization, at shown ATC_code_G02#G02B_Contraceptives_for_topical_use. (As mentioned in the edit summary at the time of the split, a case could be made for including the word "plastic".) "Intrauterine system" was renamed to IUD with progestogen, and "Intrauterine device" was split, with the copper-specific content at IUD with copper and the general IUD content at Intrauterine device. --Arcadian (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Where did the page say that IUD means IUD with copper? (In the section on Types of IUDs it said that they may be inert, or contain copper, or contain hormones.) The ATC code used was the general one for all IUDs. Although the example pictured was a copper IUD, the caption indicated that it was one type of IUD. The effective period was given as a range, it did not say that all such devices are effective for 12 years.
What confusion are you referring to on the talk page? (I didn't see much confusion on that in skimming the talk page. Any particular headings?)
Suggested way forward - move IUD with copper back to Intrauterine device. Since much of the content of the article currently at IUD with copper is about IUDs in general, the content will have to be moved anyway. Moving the whole article would make the history clearer.
Is a separate article about IUD with copper needed at this time? Since there is already an article on one such device, I am not sure that we have enough that relates to that type of device to make a new article necessary/desirable at this point. Zodon (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to rearrange the content, I have no objection, as long as the title+introduction of each resulting article makes the subject of the article unambiguous. --Arcadian (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this the task force for me to join?

I've already been substantially involved in authoring articles related to reproductive medicine, and now I'd like to go a bit more official and also tend to articles that not only I but also the community puts priority to. However, my interest is at least as much into infertility (and assisted reproductive technology) as in birth control, but this task force seems to focus on the latter. May this still be the task force for me, or am I in the wrong place? Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm joining anyway. I could join an infertility & ART task force as well if such a group emerges later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose new section in Cervarix Article for Important Safety Information

My name is Maitri Shah, PharmD, and I work for GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GSK) in the United States as a Medical Information Scientist. My intent is to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in Cervarix related articles to help ensure that healthcare professionals in the United States receive accurate and balanced scientific information. I would like to propose that a new section be added to the Cervarix article that includes the important safety information for Cervarix. I have added my proposal to the Cervarix Talk Page and I have released the content under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License. I think that it is important to add important safety information to ensure that the reader receives a balanced view of Cervarix. All of the pharmaceutical product articles that I have read on Wikipedia with ratings of “B and GA” (e.g. Atorvastatin and Warfarin) in the WikiProject Medicine Quality scale include safety related information. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reproductive medicine articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Reproductive medicine articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thought it might make sense to use this as a place to comment on the status of these articles before giving feedback to the Version 8 folks.
Cervical cancer - The version of Cervical cancer that they selected had some issues (some vandalism, some unsourced and unencyclopedic material, and a few glaring factual errors). I have fixed the big problems that I saw [10]. Doing some further polishing so figure would wait to submit to the Version 8 list. Zodon (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:MenstrualCycle.png: factual accuracy?

Hi, the image File:MenstrualCycle.png and its versions are extensively used in reproductive medicine related articles in numerous Wikipedias (I've temporarily removed it from the articles in the English Wikipedia). These are great images, but I think they incorrectly present the changing of levels of FSH and LH (and perhaps other hormones) during the menstrual cycle (as described for example in Gynecology by Ten Teacher, 18th ed., 2006, by Campbell and Monga, cf. [11]) and should be removed till rectified:

  1. Follicular phase. At the beginning of the phase it raises and then starts to fall under the negative-feedback effect of estrogen (and inhibin) so that only the dominant follicle develops further.
  2. The level of FSH and LH are definitely not the same in the beginning of the menstrual cycle.
  3. The surge of FSH and LH start already in the late follicular phase.

I've contacted the uploader, but due to being busy in real life, he is unable to correct the image. Perhaps someone else would want to.[12] The original OpenOffice SVX File (link on image page) got deleted as it was not created in an open format. Also, sources and data used should be explicitely stated. --Eleassar my talk 10:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

regarding points (1) and (2), it may be mostly a problem with scaling the values. The rise and fall is there and the whole variation is barely visible. Not quite sure what you mean with (3)... yes ovulation should not be a wide rectangle but rather a line. I have seen a few such images, most look very similar like this regarding FSH/LH and personally I think there is wide variation in FSH and LH levels.
Too bad the original file has been deleted, is it lost forever or could it be converted to a free format? Richiez (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Noticed SVG versions of the picture are available in some other languages, I picked the portugese and it seems I can edit it with Inkscape... although editing images like that really is nothing that I am good at. But maybe this is a way to reuse most of the image while fixing some details. SVG is kind of xml so it might be possible to find or write a script to actually extract/replace the faulty values instead of doing some mouse acrobatics. Richiez (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Are the scales even meant to be uniform? I'm not sure that they are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No, actual scales for individual substances can now be seen in image just below. I don't think it matters if they are not uniform there, as long as there is a link to a diagram with actual levels given. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to make a diagram from Stricker 2006 instead.[1] Hang on. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Averages and 90% prediction intervals for sex hormones during the menstrual cycle. References and further description of values are given in image page in Wikimedia Commons at Commons:File:Sex hormones estradiol, progesterone, LH and FSH during menstrual cycle.svg.
There, the diagram is finished. So now, as I see it, it's simply to take the "average"-lines to replace the ones in the image above. But first, does anyone have any comments on the diagram? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think it would be a good idea to have the main source data from Stricker 2006 easily available. I've got it in an Excel-file here, but it's not a permitted format for uploading. Could anyone convert it to an uploadable format (preferably a wiki-table)? Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this THE task force for ob/gyn?

I see that there is no specific task force for obstetrics and gynaecology. This task force, however, seems to be the most closely related one, and, IMPOV, enough so make a separate ob/gyn task force unjustified, and subsequently make it justified to redirect Wikipedia:Wikiproject ob/gyn to here. Just in case, however, can anyone think of any ob/gyn articles that should not be tagged as related to reproductive medicine? Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since no disagreeing entry has appeared, I'll now redirect Wikipedia:Wikiproject ob/gyn to here, and consider this the task force for this scope. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Family Planning in Muslim Communities

I am proposing expanding upon and possibly editing the page entitled Family Planning. The Wikipedia page indicates a need for a greater world view of the topic because though it mentions China, Hong Kong, and Family Planning in Iran, there is a great deal of content missing. I am interested in adding a major section to the page covering Family Planning in Muslim Communities. This topic is incredibly important as Islam, a religion which by its most conservative standards considers family planning solely in terms of the writings of the Qur’an, comprises approximately 21-23% of the world’s population. [2]

There exists an increasing body of research on this topic in various Muslim communities as well as increasing legislation on the topic in most Islamic states. I propose to give examples of varying Muslim communities in order to explain family planning practice differences according to geographic location, differences between the Shia and Sunni denominations, and current legislation in various Islamic states.

One of the World Health Organization’s Millennium Development Goals (5.B) highlights a need for universal access to Reproductive health, pointing out an unmet need for family planning. I believe a thorough, unbiased presentation of family planning in Muslim populations will expand upon challenges to this goal and bring light to the development of women and human rights in these communities.

I wanted to ask the WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force if there are any prominent sources or locations where related research has been completed? I do not plan on going too deeply into medical devices or procedures, but knowledge of commonly used contraception/abortion practices in Muslim communities will be essential to this topic.Mschweickart (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)mschweickart

I'm sure such a section would be highly appreciated by readers. I've found one book which may be useful, Family planning in the legacy of Islam - preview. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct title for article Sterilization (surgical procedure)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Sterilization (surgical procedure)#What should the scope of this article be? Should it be limited to "surgical"? as to what the correct title for the article should be. As per the first post of that Talk section, there is currently a discrepancy between the article title and its contents. The general consensus of the discussion appears to be that the scope should include surgical and non-surgical methods, and thus we should rename the article (and tidy up the contents). However the participants don't agree on what the title should be, and would like someone from WikiProject Medicine to provide an opinion. The most recent suggestions are:

  • Sterilization (surgical / nonsurgical) - suggested by Skyeking, for reasons described described by him on the Talk page
  • Sterilization (medicine) - suggested by Mitch Ames, because it appears to comply with WP:MEDMOS#Titles requiring disambiguation.

Can we have some opinions on these, or other article titles please - preferably at Talk:Sterilization (surgical procedure)#What should the scope of this article be? Should it be limited to "surgical"? so that all discussion appears in one place. Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I made a comment there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for Featured Article nomination

This project has an opportunity to promote its article Birth control movement in the United States article to Featured Article status. If you are familiar with the Featured Article criteria, you are welcome to contribute a FA review at the review page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Erection

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Erection#Reverts of recent edits. This really involves two separate questions:

  • Is the penis depicted in the left photograph at the top of the page correctly labeled as "flaccid", or is it partly engorged, and more properly labeled as "semi-flaccid"; and also are both of these two images redundant, given the series of photographs lower on the page?
  • Is the statement:
"Erections during sleep or when waking up are known as nocturnal penile tumescence, informally called morning wood or morning glory"
appropriate phrasing for a serious article in Wikipedia, or are these merely two slang terms, of a number of such?

One user continually reverts any edits to the article made by others, to either of these two questions. This same user appears to be intrigued by human sexuality generally, and his behavior is similar at several such articles. Your participation in this discussion will be welcomed. If authoritative information can be provided, the RfC can hopefully be closed. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Yonskii at the fertility article- changing of content and personal attacks against me

I would like to report User:Yonskii for his attitude at the fertility article. My complaint includes both his edits and his attitude against me, such as his personal attacks against me- accusing me of activism and bias, refusing to discuss the changes on his talk page. Here is a study that I'm trying to add, which I think is useful. The study is here [13]. I'm also trying to add an interview with the author of the study (a quote from the interview) which is here:[14]

Here is a excerpt from the abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of aging on the percentage of outwardly healthy couples who are sterile (completely unable to conceive without assisted reproduction) or infertile (unable to conceive within a year of unprotected intercourse).

(...)

RESULTS: Sterility was estimated at about 1%; this percent did not change with age. The percentage infertility was estimated at 8% for women aged 19-26 years, 13-14% for women aged 27-34 years and 18% for women aged 35-39 years.


CONCLUSION: Increased infertility in older couples is attributable primarily to declines in fertility rates rather than to absolute sterility. Many infertile couples will conceive if they try for an additional year.


My questing are as follows:

Is this study acceptable? How should it be presented?

Is User:Yonskii attitude acceptable? ie- his edit summaries? His refusal to discuss? His removal of sourced information?

188.25.160.111 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place to discuss user behavior. Questions about that would be better directed to editorial assistance, or the user noticeboards. Please remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks
While it is in a reputable journal, the study appears to be a primary source for the information you are concerned with (i.e. it is not a review article). As such, interpretation is difficult, a reliable secondary source would be better. I will post more specifics on the article talk page. Zodon (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Birth control

Birth control is easy and very important to improve. Please see Talk:Birth control#Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month through Talk:Birth control#Comparison. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion - List of books about AIDS

  1. List of books about AIDS
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about AIDS

Ongoing deletion discussion for List of books about AIDS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about AIDS.

Perhaps this WikiProject and its members may be interested in contributing to this discussion, and/or a quality improvement project for this list page. — Cirt (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a comment there. To remain in Wikiedia, I think the list requires more extensive work than I believe can be achieved in a foreseeable future. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Archived

I just archived discussion older than 1 year to /Archive 1. If you feel that your issue has not been appropriately dealt with, then feel free to post it again here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oral sex and miscarriage reduction?

Could somebody with very good knowledge of the subject look at the article Oral sex? That article has a whole section titled "Miscarriage reduction" which states as fact that oral sex (fellatio) reduces the risk of miscarriage. This is presented as an unequivocal fact, but I'm not aware of being any academic consensus in this regard or anything close to it (the evidence seems quite sparse). Also this is not mentioned at all in the miscarriage article. Could somebody take a look at that?188.25.159.53 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The practice seems to have an established association with pre-eclampsia, as described in the pre-eclampsia and paternal tolerance section. I don't see any study directly studying the correlation between oral sex and miscarriage, but at the same time I don't find the section to present it as an unequivocal fact, so I think it's acceptable as it is. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-assessment of Pregnancy, please

I've recently made major revisions to the Pregnancy article, and I would a appreciate a re-assessment of it by the WikiProject Medicine quality scale. Personally, I think it deserves a B now, but I may have a conflict of interest by having edited it so much recently. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Family Planning in Sub Saharan Africa Page Proposal

I am planning on writing a new article titled "Family Planning in Sub Saharan Africa" for a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course that I am taking at Rice University. I am planning on focusing on a few countries, and I will add links to these countries to the current "Family Planning" page under the "Policy" subsection. The countries that I have chosen are Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa, and Tanzania. I chose those countries to focus on because from the research I have done, there is the most information available about those countries and/or they are places where fertility rates and maternal death rates are highest. Does anyone have any suggestions for alternate or additional countries to include? In the sections about each country, I am planning to include information on availability of birth control and social factors that impact family planning in addition to other basic statistics on maternal and child mortality rates. I am also planning to include data from studies that have been done on family planning issues in those countries. My sources will consist of scholarly articles and possibly newspaper articles. There will be a full list of the sources I have used in my preliminary research and more information about this project on my home page. Any feedback about this project would be appreciated. Thank you. Juliannadrew (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a very needed topic, and I'm grateful for your interest in the subject. I see two alternatives here:
Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback. I realized that there is already a Birth Control in Africa article, so I have been working on revising that. I have added more information to the page and tried to improve the organization. If you would like to look at it, I would appreciate any feedback you have on how to improve that article further.Juliannadrew (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you did really good work Otherwise, from the quick look I had today I have nothing to add in addition to the peer reviews already presented. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Archived a thread

Archived one thread that dealt with a since-closed deletion discussion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New contributor looking for advice on creating a new article

Hello all, I am required to contribute to Wiki for my class Gender and Economics in the Third World and have been designated to work on El Salvador. I am working on an article to be called Reproductive rights in El Salvador. I am looking at covering topics including things like history, abortion, sexual violence/crime, legal and/or religious issues, education, activism, prenatal care and other issues surrounding pregnancy. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advice can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you all for your time. TINGLED1 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on what I have seen, I was thinking of something like this: Contents 1 History – A short overview of El Salvador and significant events that changed reproductive laws, rights, and policies 2 Human rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies and a look at their own laws – like their stance on the Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, etc. 3 Women's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for women and a look at their own laws – like prenatal care, family planning education, birth control access 4 Men's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for men and a look at their own laws – things like family planning education, access to condoms and spermicides, sperm donation 5 Youth rights and access – Education – Sexual education policies – What information, if any, do children receive and at what age? Contraceptive policies and availability 6 Gender equality and violence against women – What forms of gender-based violence are happening? – Rape 7 STD’s/STI’s/HIV/AIDS – Practices, polices, education, prevention 8 Issues 

       8.1 Family rights, laws, and polices
       8.2 Abortion rights, laws, and policies
       8.3 Religious beliefs and issues

9 See also The Center for Reproductive Rights, Human sexuality, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Roe v. Wade, Reproductive rights 10 References - I don't want to spam up this page by listing them all here but I do have a lot of them. 11 External links - Again, I have plenty but don't want to spam this up by listing them all here.

TINGLED1 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It sound like an important article. I think the content description seems fine. I list some similar articles below for other countries, since they may help you with inspiration for how to design the new one:
I wish you all the best with the project. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to broaden/rename HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry

There is a discussion, Talk:HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#Propose broaden scope and rename, that members of this project may be interested in. Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added to page in my watchlist. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Move: Vaginal birth after caesarean → Delivery after previous Caesarean section

I made this request at Talk:Vaginal_birth_after_caesarean#Requested_move. Please have a look. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reproductive issues

List of reproductive issues used to be a (sub)stub, and was redirected to Bioethics years ago. It might be interesting to turn it into a proper article. In the meantime, if anyone has a good list of medical conditions that are treated by obstetricians or gynecologists, then please either {{ping}} me or add |field = Obstetrics (or similar) to them yourself. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a list at Gynaecology#Diseases, but it may need an expansion. I changed the List of reproductive issues to include this sense as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

uterine prolapse page

Hello, I am Dr Renee Edwards, a urogynecologist at Oregon Health & Science University. Today we had an edit-a-thon on women's health topics and chose to work on the uterine prolapse page. Thank you. I hope to continue working on pages related to pelvic organ prolapse Docrenee (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you'll find continued interest in editing women's health topics. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Pap test edits

As part of an edit-a-thon today, I edited the entry on Pap tests. I just wanted to say hello to those who work in this page; look forward to hearing back from you. Doc michelle (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Any improvement to women's health articles are appreciated, so you are welcome back. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Establishment of detailed reference values for luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol, and progesterone during different phases of the menstrual cycle on the Abbott ARCHITECT analyzer. Reto Stricker, Raphael Eberhart, Marie-Christine Chevailler, Frank A. Quinn, Paul Bischof and Rene´ Stricker. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44(7):883–887 PMID 16776638. Alternative link: [15]
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Reproductive_medicine_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1142753247"