Talk:Sexuality after spinal cord injury/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this and jot queries below. I'll try and give this a big as shove as possible towards FAC: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you Cas! delldot ∇. 21:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• SCI impairs the brain's ability to send and receive messages to parts of the body served by the spinal cord below the level of injury to it; - is ungainly, surely would be simpler as, "The brain's ability to send and receive messages to parts of the body served by the spinal cord below the level of the injury is impaired;" - also "send and receive messages" --> "communicate with"?
  • How does this sound? Damage to the spinal cord impairs its ability to transmit messages between the brain and parts of the body below the level of the lesion. Your suggestion would be fine too though. delldot ∇. 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although a myth has existed for years that people with SCI are asexual -I'd say, "Although a belief has existed for years that people with SCI are asexual" or (better) "Although people with SCI were believed to be asexual" ...you haven't dispelled the belief as a myth until the research...
  • Good call. delldot ∇. 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Double check the references. Some first initials do not have periods and some do.
  • Done. delldot ∇. 23:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• recommend expanding ref 35 by hand as the bot never does.
  • Done. delldot ∇. 23:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Tired now as late here. more tomorrow. Cheers....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) back again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, despite a normal or high sperm count, a high number of abnormal sperm are present - any explanation or theory as to why?
  • PMID 24278717 says, "The majority of men with SCI have a distinct semen profile characterized by normal total sperm count, but abnormally low sperm motility [55, 83, 84]. The cause of this condition is unknown and has been an area of active investigation." And it goes on to describe a variety of proposals, including scrotal temperature, hormonal changes, immune system abnormalities, and dysfunction of the seminal vesicles and prostate. Is this too much detail though? I could pick just the most likely cause to mention (accessory gland dysfunction). delldot ∇. 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • How about this? The reason for these abnormalities is not known, but research points to dysfunction of the seminal vesicles and prostate gland that toxifies the semen. Added. delldot ∇. 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it is important to add in detail as it is central to the topic. Not sure about "toxifies"....."impairs" (somehow?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
        • How about research points to dysfunction of the seminal vesicles and prostate gland that increases concentrations of substances that are toxic to sperm or dysfunction of the seminal vesicles and prostate gland that makes semen toxic to sperm? I could also add more detail, e.g. mention specific factors present in the semen (e.g. ROS). delldot ∇. 20:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
          • The first one and yes to more detail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Added Concentrations of platelet-acting factor acetylhydrolase and immune-related proteins called cytokines are higher in the semen of men with SCI, both of which are harmful to sperm.
              • Yep. this is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• In one study 69% of women reported being sexually satisfied - why is this study singled out, in comparison with the numbers in the sentence following?
  • No good reason, other than that it was a concrete number rather than a range. Is this better? After a SCI, 80% of women return to being sexually active, and the numbers who report being sexually satisfied range from 40–88%. delldot ∇. 01:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it would have been worth singling out if a particularly large study, but otherwise not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• , the frequency increases after time - some idea (even ballpark) as to how long would be good here
  • I'm having trouble finding specifics, probably because it differs widely for different people. PMID 17033620 says, "the greater the number of years postinjury the greater the likelihood of a subject having been in a sexual relationship." So I added As years go by after an injury, the odds that a person will become involved in a sexual relationship increase. delldot ∇. 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree/that's better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• I don't get a sense of how a person with impaired sensation in their genitals actually experiences an orgasm, if that makes sense, which I thought would have been rather integral to the topic (?)
  • I've been working on expanding this, so there's more about orgasm after complete injury in the complete and incomplete section. I'll keep trying to add info. What do you think so far? delldot ∇. 06:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I've summarized what is currently understood about complete SCI and orgasm. delldot ∇. 03:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• This method is preferred for its efficacy, but can cause pain and scarring - "efficacy" is good something works in a trial - "effectiveness" is how good it works IRL
  • Went with "effectiveness". delldot ∇. 03:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, a pretty good read overall. Quite dense WRT information so will have another lookover later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this is great feedback! I'll start working on these now and keep going tomorrow. delldot ∇. 23:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• The use of efficacy is correct, there is no "trial v IRL" distinction in the meaning. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, the source uses 'effective', so maybe I should go with that anyway. delldot ∇. 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I like that you've sourced this article so well. More than that, you've done a terrific job on the article. In the Women section, though, is there a better source that can be used in place of this primary source? I ask per WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, the citations for some of those sentences will be easy to replace, others will take longer. I'll replace them as I keep working. delldot ∇. 06:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Done.

@Casliber: I think I've addressed everything brought up so far (and made a lot of other changes too!). I'm happy to hear any more thoughts you may have, I've been toying with the idea of an eventual FAC. delldot ∇. 17:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: I think sparing use of non-review articles has been necessary to round this article out, and that's ok by me. Looking Good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Your input has been great. delldot ∇. 02:03, 11 November 2015 (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.