Misplaced Pages

Clitoris is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Flyer22 (talk) at 22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Copyvio detector
• Authorship
• External links

• Templates
• Criteria
• Instructions

I'll be reading and researching over the next few days, though will make comments and observations as I go along. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though content and potentially significant changes will be mentioned here. I am a slow reviewer, and this is a particularly complex, sensitive and important subject, so I will be inclined to take even more care; as such, speed is not going to be a primary consideration. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork 10:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

• Has a reference section. SilkTork 10:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• No edit wars. SilkTork 11:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Images. Copyright tags are appropriate. SilkTork 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Broad coverage. This is a very detailed survey of the clitoris with an abundance of material. I've not noticed any significant areas missed out in my research of the subject. SilkTork 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sourcing. The article is richly endowed with sources - the sources check out, and the statements and trend of the article are found in in other sources not used in the article. SilkTork 19:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• No original research. I see no evidence of original research. Text remains close to sources, and appears not to misuse sources, or reach conclusions not supported by sources. SilkTork 19:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• All Mos criteria apart from Lead. SilkTork 11:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• NPOV. SilkTork 11:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Images. SilkTork 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Prose. While still at an advanced reading level, there is sufficient assistance and links to enable most readers to come to an understanding with a little effort. I remain mildly concerned that some readers may be put off, and so go to other, simpler, sources, which may not have the research and understanding of this article, and I would flag that for ongoing development, but as it currently stands (though I still need to re-examine the lead), I feel this now meets GA criteria for clarity. SilkTork 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

• Nerve ends - "twice as many in the glans of the human penis" Is there a need for such comparison? We seem to be potentially moving into areas of sexual politics here, with possible one-upmanship from statements that the foreskin contains between 10,000 and 20,000. I am aware that some sources use such a comparison, but also that other sources do not, so it is an editorial decision to include it. Some wordings I have come upon are "many", "numerous", "greatly endowed" and "generous supply" of sensitive nerve endings. The precision of an approx number is welcomed as an addition to this, though the comparison and the awkward qualifying that follows is problematic in itself as well as its potential to be used as an unfortunate sound bite. If it felt that the comparison to the penis is worthwhile - perhaps present it in a neutral manner: "The glans of the clitoris, or the clitoris as a whole, is richly supplied with sensitive nerve endings - more than any other part of the human body; modern research suggests around 8,000 nerve endings (for comparison, the human penis contains around 4,000). SilkTork 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Captions. I did note that the caption on one link leads to an external site, and such links are generally frowned upon; however I feel it is useful, and does not go against the spirit of the guideline. Some thought, however, might be given to notifying the reader that clicking on the link will be taking them to a site outside of Misplaced Pages. SilkTork 12:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The image in use above the caption link is not a still from the video. It might be expected by the reader that the image is more closely related to the link than is the case, and there is potential for some dissonance here, so I am querying this. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to place the video link in the External links section, and to place a caption directly related to the image used in its place. SilkTork 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the image and link. The person who placed it there has a number of copyright concerns on his talkpage, and has left Misplaced Pages. SilkTork 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Focus. There is a lot of detail here, and while I understand the need to be precise, sometimes this appears excessive - as in An article published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology, in July 1992, states that the average width of the clitoral glans lies within the range of 2.5 to 4.5 millimetres (0.098 to 0.18 in), indicating that the average size is smaller than a pencil-top eraser. The authors concluded, "The mean (+/- standard deviation) transverse diameter of the glans clitoris was 3.4 +/- 1.0 mm. The longitudinal diameter of the glans was 5.1 +/- 1.4 mm. Total clitoral length including glans and body was 16.0 +/- 4.3 mm. The mean clitoral index was 18.5 mm2. Measurements of all diameters were normally distributed." This statement could be reduced to A 1992 article in Obstetrics & Gynecology gives the average width of the clitoral glans as between 2.5 and 4.5 millimetres (0.098 to 0.18 in), with the average size as smaller than a pencil-top eraser, and the total clitoral length including glans and body as 16.0 +/- 4.3 mm..

The Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section is quite long, and consideration could be given to splitting this section out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article. I'm sure there is in fact more to say on the subject than could reasonably be contained any longer in this article, and the topic does have its own notability. SilkTork 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

All addressed below. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork 11:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Clarity of prose. The article is well written and presented. The language is precise, formal, authoritative, professional, and works extremely well for high functioning readers who already have some understanding of medical matters. This would make a very useful introduction to the clitoris for university students. It could, however, be tricky for even reasonably intelligent and educated readers, and does not quite match the aim of "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Sentences such as "These corpora are separated incompletely from each other with a medial located by a fibrous pectiniform septum. Each crura is attached to the corresponding ischial ramus; they are extensions of the copora beneath the descending pubic rami." are dense in technical language. It would be helpful to look for some means of explaining and informing the general reader when presenting material. SilkTork 13:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review, SilkTork, and for your comment that the article is well-written and well-presented. Although I do see that you have an issue with the prose; I thought about getting a copy-editor, but also didn't see it as necessarily needed. As for the nerve endings text, it's not about politics or one-upmanship. I didn't mean that when adding it; it's that sources about clitoral anatomy are usually comparing the clitoris and penis, including how many nerve endings are in either structure as a whole or the glans. That's why I created a Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section. I thought about moving the nerve endings comparison there, but decided against it because mentioning the number of nerve endings that the clitoris has is more relevant to the section about its general structure. And it's extremely relevant information for the reader to know that the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other part of the human body. I of course didn't want to state that without specifying just how many nerve endings -- 8,000 -- or to instead mention the 8,000 nerve endings bit in the section that compares clitoral and penile differences. Also, leaving the nerve endings text as "8000, more than any other part of the human body," which I thought about doing for months, didn't seem right or complete when there are sources that state that the clitoris and penis, or clitoral glans and glans of the penis, have the same amount of nerve endings. This is why I feel that I was neutral on the matter with respect to the sources, because I mention the "more than" aspect and the "equal" aspect. That said, while I wouldn't mind your proposed wording (except for stating "The glans of the clitoris, or the clitoris as a whole, is richly supplied with sensitive nerve endings," because it's not an "or" matter in that respect), maybe it's better to have the "8,000, more than any other body part" info in the General structure section and to have the "for comparison, the human penis contains around 4,000, although some sources state that the clitoris and penis have the same number of nerve endings in the body or glans" info in the "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" section. Sure, the 8,000 factor would be noted in two parts of the article, but our articles are allowed to mention the same thing in more than one place...as long as it's not terribly redundant. And as for the foreskin of the penis containing 10,000 and 20,000 nerve endings, that's been debated all over the penile-related articles, such as Foreskin, Circumcision, Genital modification and mutilation, etc., and in addition to not knowing how accurate that information is, I did not want to bring that drama to this article. Just look at the drama that goes on at the Circumcision article.

Regarding potentially significant changes to this article, I feel that its current layout (its headings and subheadings) is best. I went over all the layouts in my head, and this is the one that, from my knowledge of the subject, is the more superior layout. But regarding prose and technical language, I understand that some of the prose needs improvement. And we've discussed the technical language matter before. From what I can see, it's only an issue for you regarding the Embryonic development and General structure sections. But as we discussed, technical terms cannot always be avoided. That is especially the case for this article. This is partly a medical article, SilkTork, and all of our well-developed anatomical/medical articles are like this. See HIV/AIDS, which is also up for GA status, for example, or any of our GA and WP:FA anatomical and/or medical articles. You stated that technical terms would be better left to the general body. Maybe I'm being too scientific in my thinking, but I have no idea how to make the text more lay-person friendly. And I'm not sure that it's best, given how our other high-quality anatomical/medical articles are formatted. It's not really jargon; just simply the correct terms for these structures. If you or someone else can make the wording more "lay-person friendly," while still keeping the article professional-sounding and without changing the text's meaning, I don't object horribly to that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Regarding potentially significant changes to this article" - I haven't looked deeply enough to see if any significant changes (other than making it more accessible) would be warranted, but if I feel that such is the case I would be bringing the matter here for discussion rather than implementing them on the article. Other than the issue of accessibility, which as you say we've already touched on, so far I have no concerns, and am impressed at the scholarship. As regards that accessibility issue, I think that between the two of us we can work on producing something acceptable. SilkTork 22:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I've stated, previous interaction with you on achieving GA status was pleasant. In addition to wanting what is best for Misplaced Pages articles, whether or not your idea of what is best contrasts others', you take the time to listen to and weigh others' comments/arguments. I trust that we can compromise on the wording in a way that doesn't jeopardize the quality of the text. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I'm not sure if you have a problem with the wording in the Embryonic development section. But words such as "genital tubercle," "gene—SRY—on the Y chromosome" and protein "tdf (testis determining factor)" is what I mean about things that cannot be reworded. Something like "phenotypic sex" can be, and it's specified in parentheses what is meant by that -- secondary sex characteristics -- but most of the other technical terms in the article can't be. These are terms that are used in any scholarly source about the clitoris, and there's no way that any layperson would understand what we are describing, no matter the term, no matter how we describe them, unless they understand where in the body these structures are located. They'd have to read up on the terms to try to begin to understand where the structures are. That's why we link to them (if there is a Misplaced Pages article on them). But even then, they likely aren't going to understand these structures' location/design, unless they have significantly studied this topic. We describe the structures with the terms that science allows. There are few, often no, alternative terms for the anatomical descriptions of the clitoris (other than the slang for its glans). Using other terms/descriptions for the clitoris is like trying to describe the human skeleton while using alternative terms. Except that it's much easier to see just where the structures of a skeleton are. But I do see one term that can be changed or clarified in the General structure section -- introitus. "Introitus" can simply be referred to as "vaginal opening," as "vaginal opening" is even used in a line before it. So I'll do that now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be guided by you on these matters, though I would be reluctant to assume too quickly that a phrase doesn't have a synonym - "genital tubercle" = "rudimentary phallus" = "primordium of the clitoris" = "early stage of the development of the clitoris". Sometimes a rephrasing can assist: "The penis in mammals develops from an outgrowth called the genital tubercle" is helpful and educational. The sentence currently is During the development of an embryo, at the time of development of the urinary and reproductive organs, the previously undifferentiated genital tubercle develops into either a clitoris or penis, along with all other major organ systems, making them homologous. A slight rephrasing in line with Britannica.com may be helpful (also bearing in mind that the focus of the article is the clitoris, rather than the development of an embryo, so making the clitoris the active element of the sentence): The clitoris develops from an outgrowth in embryos called the genital tubercle which, during development of the urinary and reproductive organs, develops into either a clitoris or penis; this shared embryonic origin makes these two organs homologous. SilkTork 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I took care of your issue with the nerve endings wording. I left the "8,000, more than any other body part" info in the General structure section and moved comparison to the penis to the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section, like I suggested above.

And, LOL, yes, I know that "genital tubercle" can be called "rudimentary phallus," as its article makes clear, or "primordium of the clitoris," but how are any of those latter terms any better at helping readers understand what we mean? And simply describing it as the "early stage of the development of the clitoris" is not telling us what that stage is/where it is happening. "Genital tubercle" tells of what it's called and its link tells us what it is. As for mentioning the development of an embryo... One of course can't talk about the development of the clitoris without talking about the development of the embryo. Not if they want a comprehensive article on this topic. After all, the section is about embryonic development. But it's not as though the section isn't significantly focused on the clitoris. I've added your proposed wording, though tweaked it a bit and kept mention of the structure initially being undifferentiated because that makes the topic even clearer and the Britannica source mentions it as well.

I'm fine with cutting the Obstetrics & Gynecology information down, and have done so. But the Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section is only six paragraphs long, the same as the Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular section, and, seeing as it's the biggest discussion/debate about the clitoris, I feel that it's length is extremely reasonable. Everything there, with the exception of Puppo's criticism of O'Connell and other researchers, is extremely relevant and needed. I have no issue with cutting the Puppo information down, especially given that it may be WP:Undue weight to devote a whole paragraph to his views in that section (as in views that contrast what most scientists are stating about the relationship between the clitoris and vagina), but it may be best that we mention him a bit to show that there is criticism of O'Connell and those who think like her with regard to clitoral anatomy. I am also open to moving the second-wave feminist movement/Anne Koedt information to the "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular" section, but I strongly believe that everything else in that section should stay. Besides the Sexual arousal section, it's all the past and latest research on sexual stimulation of the clitoris and clitoral orgasm and how that interacts with the vagina or if it does at all, in a summarized fashion. And I am not interested in creating an article on such a contentious topic as that, especially when we have the Orgasm article for it already. And like I discussed with you before, I'm certain that most people come to this article for information on clitoral stimulation and orgasm. I did my best to be as comprehensive as I could with including that information without going into each and every detail about it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I cut down the Puppo text significantly, to where there are now only five paragraphs in that section. However, that last paragraph is hefty (validly so), and I can therefore see the desire to split it back into two paragraphs. But like I stated, six paragraphs is not excessive at all, especially in this case. And I don't see anything needing to be significantly cut away from the other six-paragraph section, "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular," either; to significantly cut anything from there would be to cut very relevant/valuable information as well. Personally, I feel that sections should at least contain 4-6 paragraphs before being split into a subsection and obviously have never thought to have a section of such length be split into its own article (and above I've explained why that's not a good idea in this case/why I wouldn't in this case). It's not as though the sections are divided into hefty subsections, and plenty of GA and FA articles have sections that are five or six paragraphs long (though, yes, I've noticed that their sections, at most, usually stop at four paragraphs. They usually only extend that unless needed, as is the case with this article (with sections ranging from 1-6 paragraphs). Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Image copyright. I continue to have problems with the image used in the Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section. The video link should be moved to the external links section, and the image - despite being on Commons - is a clear copyright violation. The image is taken from the video, which has a copyright stamp, but the copyright stamp has been clipped from the image. I will raise the issue on Commons. SilkTork 14:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the image and link. The person who placed it there has a number of copyright concerns on his talkpage, and has left Misplaced Pages. SilkTork 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Not a GA issue, but do the two external links meet WP:EL? SilkTork 12:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• In those external links, Dr Helen O'Connell talks about the erectile tissue of the clitoris helping to squeeze the urethra shut. Her findings are reported here, here and elsewhere. Is this worth mentioning in the article? SilkTork 16:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The first external link, "Time for rethink on the clitoris," is already higher in the article, as a laysummary source of "Anatomy of the clitoris" (currently ref #6). So it should be removed from the External links section, which is what I've been meaning to do...and will now do. The second source seems to meet the External links guideline.

As for "the erectile tissue of the clitoris helping to squeeze the urethra shut," we also mention the following: "The vestibular bulbs lie close to each of the crura on either side of the vaginal opening; internally, they are beneath the labia majora. When engorged with blood, they cuff the vaginal opening and cause the vulva to expand outward." So I don't see a problem with mentioning that particular O'Connell finding. But we do have to be careful about reporting some researchers' findings as definitive, since researchers are not in agreement about everything regarding the clitoris (such as to what extent the clitoral glans is composed of erectile tissue or if it's composed of erectile tissue at all, which I did include mention of in the General structure section). Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm only just starting on the subject, but already I am amazed at how little we know about our own bodies. We are exploring dark matter and how the universe began, but we don't know how the clitoris works. SilkTork 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I did not know half as much about the clitoris at 16 as I do now, in my late 20s. But, hey, at least I still look like I'm in my late teens, according to my family and random people anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no way this phrase is correct "the clitoris is present ... and most carnivorous female animals". Surely female insects do not, any they represent most carnivorous female animals... Mattximus (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't find the link to the source that backs that line. But I didn't think of insects representing most carnivorous female animals...because when one thinks of carnivores, they don't usually think of insects. So maybe the source means carnivorous female mammals? I'll go ahead and change it to "some." Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I used "other" for the lead, seeing as the spotted hyena is already mentioned there first, and "some" for the In other animals section (before any carnivorous animal is mentioned). Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In relation to this discussion, the two sources used in the body to support the statement "the clitoris is present in most mammiferous animals, as well as kangaroos and whales", do not say this; however this source does, and from the similar use of wording (and animal examples) is probably the one you were looking for. SilkTork 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This source (very old) suggests that some birds also have a clitoris. However, that is mentioned for information for potential future development - I would not expect this article to be that comprehensive for a GA. Some awareness that mammals other than humans also have a clitoris will be sufficient for "broad coverage". SilkTork 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is an image related to clitoromegaly, which is in a different section from where it is mentioned. There is a link in the text which directs readers to the section where the image is placed - however, I wonder if the text is better placed in the same section as the image. Also in that section, there is a quote referring to clitoromegaly which picks up on discussion related to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but it has not yet been made clear that clitoromegaly may be as a result of Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Bringing the text into that section and editing slightly may help make the connection with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia clearer. SilkTork 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not a GA issue. In places there are citation clusters - are all these citations needed? See Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill. SilkTork 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

With regard to "the clitoris is present in most mammiferous animals" line, though it's the "most carnivorous female animals" part that Mattximus had/has a problem with, I got it from this source. It's an old source (1902), which may be why I didn't include it in the article. But in addition to its mammiferous and carnivorous mentions being in the article, I included some other parts of its text. If my wording is too close to the original text, it needs to be reworded...unless it can't be worded in any other way. Including that source should be okay if combined with your 1974 source. We typically want the most recent sources for topics dealing with research, but as the In other animals section states, research on clitoral anatomy in non-human animals is significantly rare.

I included the image of clitoromegaly in the Modification and mutilation section because that section is partly about clitoromegaly. Clitoromegaly can be any type of clitoris enlargement that is abnormal. Thus the image fits in that section, to show what clitoris enlargement can look like. Although, in some cases, the clitoris is of course bigger. But I see that you are talking about the fact that clitoromegaly is first mentioned in the Embryonic development section. It was already there before I significantly expanded the article. I left it there (redirecting readers to the Modification and mutilation section as well) because clitoromegaly also has to do with embryonic development. It seems relevant to mention it where it is. And it's already covered by the latter section, so specific mention of it isn't needed there. But I don't mind at all if you want to add mention that clitoromegaly may be a result of congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

The citations. I am aware of citation overkill, but I feel that using four references for some lines, especially contentious ones, are fine. Further, I simply don't like references "going to waste" (in a way). When at least three or four references back the same thing, I am often tempted to use those three or four references to support that text in the article (although I'm not fond of uneven numbers; my obsessive-compulsive disorder talking there). Five or six citations is overkill, in my opinion, but I included two more beside the four that were already supporting the "Research into the female sexual response cycle demonstrates that most women (70–80%) achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation" line so that people will have even more to check that line against. Too many people are still unaware that it is direct stimulation of the clitoris, and not vaginal stimulation, that is most likely to create female orgasm, which makes such a line controversial and in need of heavy-duty sourcing. Besides, most sources simply state "most women" without specifying the percentage. The usual percentage given is 70% or 70-80%, and so I wanted to include sources that specifically mention the percentage. I am willing to remove two sources from that line, but I do believe that it should be backed to at least four. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I used the 1902 source for "the clitoris is present in most mammiferous animals" line. I would have used your 1974 source to back it (although it's not a good source for anatomy), but it's by the same author. I'm certain that the author -- Frederick Hollick -- didn't live for all these years, even being attributed as early as 1847, so somehow his work kept getting published after his death. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for delay. ArbCom matters have eaten up my time. I had intended to spend today on this, as I had some free time with my daughter in nursery, but the swamp of emails dragged on all day. I'm exhausted now, and will just chill out on some minor music article edits before going to bed. Hopefully I will get some time tomorrow. SilkTork 22:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As you know, I am aware of your being busy with the Fæ ArbCom case, and, you started off saying that you are a slow reviewer, so no worries. I'm not in a rush with regard to this review. And in the meantime, it was good to find out that a great contributor from WP:MED also considers the article well-written. Although more tweaking is of course to ensue. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On hold

A detailed and informative article. Clearly a lot of work has been done in building this article. There are some minor quibbles and queries to be addressed, such as the image and link in the Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section, and also if that section could be/should be split out per WP:Summary style; however, essentially the article meets GA criteria bar the clarity of prose aspect, and the lead (which typically needs working on, especially after changes have occurred during a review). This is now mainly a copyediting job. I'll put on hold for the standard initial seven days, but am quite happy to extend that. And I'm quite happy to help out on the task. I suspect this is best done by two people at least, and it may involve a degree of negotiation and simple trial and error in order to find a decent balance between readability and professionalism. SilkTork 11:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, you noted the lead here and above. But, aside from maybe minor tweaking, I don't understand what issues you have with it. The prose doesn't seem bad, and it summarizes the most important and major aspects of the article. Like you, I'm also not sure about this cut you made to the hyena information. And you removed "only," clearly because it's attached to "female mammals" and an "ostrich" isn't a mammal. But shouldn't the lead mention something about how only females have a clitoris, negating those who are intersex?

As for the "Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm" section, the image by itself should probably stay. I'm not sure about the link. I didn't add them, and only recently clicked on that link for the first time (in June or earlier this month). But both the image and link have been there for some time. As for the text in that section, as you know, I've already stated that I've summarized that section as much as it can be summarized without losing vital information, that it's about the same length as the "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular" section and isn't too long compared to other GA and FA articles with five or six paragraph sections. Like I stated, splitting out any part of that section would be detrimental to it, needlessly contentious (and more work for me in having to watch over it) if made into its own article, and especially needless since there are other articles on Misplaced Pages that cover this information in part and since the Orgasm article exists to significantly go in-detail about it. I honestly don't know what more to state about this, except to reiterate that most people will undoubtedly be coming to this article for information on sexual stimulation and orgasm and that this aspect of the clitoris is its biggest discussion and debate in the modern era. Like I stated, "t's all the past and latest research on sexual stimulation of the clitoris and clitoral orgasm and how that interacts with the vagina or if it does at all, in a summarized fashion." Seriously, in all of the literature I have researched about the clitoris over the years (including in June and July of this year when significantly expanding this article), most of what is talked about with regard to the clitoris is how important it is to female sexual stimulation and orgasm, just how the vagina measures up to it and interacts with it, and society's general lack of knowledge about all of this. But I do appreciate your not demanding a cut of anything in that section and that you now only consider this GA process to be a copyediting issue.

Yes, as you stated here, the copyediting of this article will need to be subtle and careful. And per what you stated about needing "to involve a degree of negotiation and simple trial and error in order to find a decent balance between readability and professionalism," negotiating is fine as long as the result is not a detriment to the article. While people sometimes disagree on what is a detriment or not, I do believe that my extensive research on the topic has provided me with a better eye on what is beneficial to the article. But I am hoping to not have to debate any matters during the copyediting, since copyediting is more about wording and formatting than reformatting and content disputes. Per your suggestion, I'll go ahead and contact Malleus Fatuorum. Considering the carefulness needed when copyediting this article, and that I'd need to therefore examine the edits, I prefer that it only has one copyeditor. You or I, or Nigelj, may need to correct things in the process, but I would rather only one person do the copyediting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Copyediting request, where Malleus and I have been discussing the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is the copy-editing phase now complete? I notice that activity has slowed. If the copy-editing is done, I'll do another read through to see where we're at. SilkTork 21:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the copyediting phase is now complete, although there may be more copyedits on the article from Mark Arsten or Accedie from time to time. Like me, Mark Arsten didn't feel that there was much to copyedit and he very recently (on Wednesday) wished me good luck on this GA review through email. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll make a sweep for clarity. I'll not be altering meaning or content, just readability - something that has recently been commented on, that Misplaced Pages is good at compared with other medical encyclopaedias. If there are any content issues I'll bring them here; at this late stage, I'm not anticipating that, but it does happen occasionally. Then I'll take a look at the lead to ensure that it does adequately summarise the main body; and finally take a closer look at the size of the Sexual stimulation section, and bring that up for discussion if it looks like a split into a standalone article would be appropriate. As always, my approach is that if there's a problem or query with my edits, I'm more than happy to talk about it. SilkTork 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• For future development it appears that there are others members of Ratite (such as the emu) and Anatidae (such as swan and duck), that have a clitoris. With the anatidae, this is because the male has a penis to enable successful copulation in water. Not sure why the flightless birds would have a penis/clitoris. SilkTork 14:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, SilkTork. I did think that everything was already settled, though, and that copyediting was the last phase. But since what you'll be doing at the moment is copyediting, I suppose it's still the last phase. All I ask now is that you think further on what I've stated about the section you continue to consider a split for. Given what I've stated about its relevance and length, including that there is another section in the article just as long, I can't hide the fact that I remain confused about why you think that a stand-alone article would be appropriate. Besides the information suiting this article especially well and its presence here being better than making readers go to another article for a couple of extra paragraphs, like I stated before, there are other articles to cover the in-depth information about sexual stimulation and orgasm. And a standalone article, which would only be a stub article for a long time, would be more work for me. I'd eventually redirect it to the Orgasm article, I'm sure. And you've already stated that the section's five-paragraph length is not a GA issue...but rather your personal quibble. As an alternative, if you're that concerned about WP:Summary style for that section, despite that section already following that guideline, it could be split into two subsections. But I obviously feel that is currently unneeded, as unneeded as splitting the "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular" section into two subsections.

And thank you about the future development information. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, regarding this rewording, I'm not sure that it's only the spotted hyena that has the distal portion of the urethra in its clitoris. I became confused on this part of the topic when reading this old source that we talked about before and this more modern one. Both mention other non-human animals with the ability to urinate through their clitorises, which is why I'd removed "only" when referring to the spotted hyena before. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago, even though I added it, I later removed mention of other non-human animals having this ability from the In other animals section...because I will need to look over more sources to see what is true and what isn't on this matter. That the spotted hyena is the only female species with "a urogenital system in which the female urinates, mates and gives birth via an enlarged, erectile clitoris" is a definite fact, however. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the adjustment. I'll certainly look further into that subject at a later date and see if the matter can be reliably confirmed either way. As for a stand-alone, I have considered your position on it (I always take what you state into consideration and look at it from every angle), but, for the reasons I've already given (looking at it from every angle), I can't find it in me to agree on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Checking on the meaning of "Masculinization of the indifferent stage is triggered by androgens produced in the testis", I note it's a copy of this source. I'm not sure what value the sentence is adding, as the sentences before and after appear to be carrying enough information. Rather than attempt to reword it, I think we can do without it completely. SilkTork 18:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• The clitoris is classed as a primary sex characteristic, so why are "secondary sex characteristics" mentioned in the Embryonic development section? I am reading and re-reading the rest of that paragraph, and while it's generally interesting information regarding embryonic development of sexual characteristics, I'm not seeing its direct relevance to the topic at hand - the clitoris: "The phenotypic sex (secondary sex characteristics) in mammals is determined by a single sex-determining gene (SRY), which codifies for the protein tdf (testis determining factor), a transcription factor that initiates a cascade of gene expression and protein products, directing development of the bipotential gonadal anlage toward testis. If no SRY gene is present, this same gonadal anlage will become an ovary." Possibly some mention of the impact of hormones and the sex-determining gene, though I don't see that it needs to go further than that. SilkTork 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, SilkTork. Are you saying that you want that whole paragraph removed? I added it because such information is mentioned in a variety of sources when explaining the initially undifferentiated tubercle's development into either a clitoris or penis. Maybe I've read too much on the subject, but that paragraph seems relevant to me. I don't see it as taking away from the article's readability by keeping it, but I do see it as unnecessarily cutting information if we remove it, given that it helps readers better understand the role of male genes/hormones during embryonic development and is mentioned in good and great sources about the clitoris. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See the part of the lead that says the initially undifferentiated tubercle "develops into either a penis or a clitoris, depending on the presence or absence of the protein tdf, which is codified by a single gene on the Y chromosome"? That explains "its direct relevance to the topic at hand." But it doesn't touch on male hormones like the Embryonic development section does. That section needs to better explain how these two factors interact and result in the genital tubercle turning into a clitoris or penis. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This source, which is in that section, explains the factors well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen in this edit, I removed "secondary sex characteristics" for the reason stated in that edit summary. It might also be better to move the "sexual differentiation begins and ends" paragraph back to the end of that section, instead of in the middle of it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

After working on that section for a bit I'm getting a better feel for why you included so much material on the testes/ovaries, as discussion of how the clitoris is formed will include some discussion on the formation of the testes as well. I have removed some duplication, restructured the section, reduced some (but not all) of the material on general genital formation, and introduced some information regarding X and Y chromosomes as that seemed helpful to an understanding of what is happening. I looked for modern sources, as the older ones retain a belief that the default position in the embryo is female, while modern thinking is that the X chromosome produces estrogen to develop female characteristics. SilkTork 13:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that and what I stated above is why I'd included that information in that section (however, I wouldn't really call it "so much" information, LOL; not any more than what you've added to it). A bit of material dealing with another part of the body, such as the vagina, is going to be in an article about the clitoris, but I understand what you are saying -- it's fine as long as it has relevance to the clitoris and largely stays on-topic. Like I stated, I'd considered the information to be relevant/on-topic. Your changes to that section are fine, although I believe that it is better to specifically mention the SRY's relation to testis, since that information is relevant and more so shows that the information is on-topic, and I might tweak that section further at a later date. But I did change "gender" to "sex" for the reasons I'd explained to Malleus in this link. As for the belief that the default sex of the embryo is female, modern sources (and this article is mostly made of up modern sources; so you might have meant "recent," although recent sources are also in the article and many recent sources also) still state that. That is because without the Y, the embryo is usually designated as female. I state "usually" because of the topic of intersex. But initially being designated as female is why scientists state that it is more accurate to call the penis an enlarged clitoris, instead of referring to the clitoris as a tiny penis. It's also why nipples exist in males. Take a look at this diff, for example. Without that Y chromosome and the exposure to androgens, the penis would be a clitoris. Even those who have XX male syndrome still possess the SRY. All of this is why the SRY is called the sex-determining gene. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm learning on the job. It's quite difficult as this is outside my area of knowledge, and I'm having to do a fair amount of reading. You'll have to bear with me as I come to some understanding of your positions in the article. The act of getting into the subject and editing the article, is helpful though, as I'm seeing the reason for some of what you have done, and then it's looking at what to leave and what still needs clarifying. And, of course, the more I get involved, the more I respect what you have done. SilkTork 19:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And I also appreciate your taking the time to read up on the subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the topic of images, I see that you removed this. I was going to state that I still don't understand the issue you had with it. But I see that this reason is valid enough.

And as for these quotes in a reference, I put them there because I'd originally used those quotes to support the fact that 70-80% of women achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation (as I stated before, most reliable sources state 70% or 80%...or 70-80%), and, without those quotes, it would have been more work for the reader to spot how I am using that source to support that fact (the Tracey Cox quote is at the far bottom of the source, for example). But those quotes are no longer needed for that information, since that source is no longer used to support that information in the article. And, besides that, I'd added it with more appropriate sources before removing it from that text, and have since added higher-quality sources to support that text. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sex/Gender

My bad. I didn't look closely enough at the Sex article. Yes, sex seems more appropriate than gender. SilkTork 19:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I had to revert again on the sex issue because, like I stated to Malleus, although "sex" and "gender" are generally interchangeable, "gender" is mostly a social term (as shown by the Gender article). Our Sex article is precisely about sex determination, which of course begins with reproduction (or usually with sperm, if being very technical), and "sex" is the term most sources use on this subject.

Also, going back to part of the text you added: "The X chromosome produces estrogen, driving the body down the female pathway." Maybe we should discard it or tweak it by mentioning two X chromosomes...because males (with the exception of birds, and some reptiles from what I've read) also have an X chromosome and (with the exception of Turner syndrome, where there is only one X or one working X, which comes with various difficulties), that's not enough to "driv the body down the female pathway," in contrast to having a Y chromosome being enough to "drive the body down a male pathway." Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the section mostly for the reasons stated in that edit summary, although I of course removed the accidental duplicate heading/image. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Image

Not a GA issue, but the File:Clitoromegaly2.jpg image is a bit blurred and unclear. File:Большой клитор.jpg is clearer - any objections to using that instead? I know the existing image comes from a medical source, but it looks like a haemorrhoid! SilkTork 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, it's clear enough to me and looks like a small penis to me, but I don't mind you exchanging it with the other image; the image you suggest seems to illustrate an enlarged clitoris better. And if you view the other image as resembling a hemorrhoid, others might as well. So since you have an image to replace it with, one which seemingly demonstrates what we are describing somewhat better, I don't see a problem with changing it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)