Jump to content

Talk:Women's health

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 5 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject template(s). Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep the rating of {{VA}} "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep only the dissimilar ones from {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Health and fitness}}, {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Women's Health}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ahernandez2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should remain Women's health

[edit]

A recent edit moved this article to Women's health issues. I reverted it because women's health is a common term used to refer to this area. It is also more general than Women's health issues (health can refer to the general state of health/wellness, rather than to specific issues or problems). Should delay splitting into subareas of women's health (health in general, issues, whatever), until the article is sufficiently large to warrant division. Zodon (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

Imo, the scope of this page requires a careful rethink (per WP:SCOPE) as a first step to improvement. At the time of writing, the main definition of "Women's health" (ie, literally, the health *of women*, per [1]) seems to fit "Gynecology" (per [2]).

One possible reliable source is: Senie, RT, ed. (2013). Epidemiology of Women's Health. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7637-6985-7.

Good luck!

86.164.164.29 (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The worst possible thing that happened to Women's health was to reduce it to gynaecology, leaving women very badly served in all other areas of health. You are correct that a more holistic approach is "Health of Women", but the title serves its purpose --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To restrict this to gynecology would be a huge mistake. See opening statement on the page. The article, admittedly contributes very little. The biggest issue in women's health at present is that it is perceived as being only about reproduction, which serves women very badly, since they have all the same health issues as men in addition.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should be the flagship page of the Women's Health Wikiproject, an overarching article that ties in all the topics. It should be raised to at least GA if not FA. I made a start at tidying up. A template would be useful too. See list of articles categorised as Women's health on the project page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Test

[edit]

Test. Harej (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I removed this image pro tem

Women's Health Protective Association monument, New York City

because it is unrelated to the text --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-review comments on GA nomination

[edit]

Note: Bluerasberry made the following comments while creating a GA review page, though he or she had no intention of actually reviewing the nomination. Hence, I have transferred the comments here to the article's talk page. The GA review page is being deleted so a genuine GA reviewer—who will open a review and complete it in full—can select the article for reviewing. Michael Goodyear, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but as the nomination is less than a day old, it shouldn't delay the ultimate review, though it may take a while for a reviewer to do said selection. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Women's mental health is not addressed in this, and it should be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and indeed there are theoretically so many aspects of health which affect women that one has to be somewhat selective. However, in this case I did actually address depressin. But I will review your resources.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also discussion of suicide. I have slightly extended the section on mental health and added some more recent references --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. I am unable to provide any source which provides a general overview of women's mental health, but here is some coverage of some specialized concepts -

All of these publications are old, but they are highly cited and do present the special needs of women in special cases. For this article to pass a "good article" review, mental health ought to be included. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Personal safety is also a health issue as well as a social one. Women have more personal safety concerns than med do. Perhaps that should be treated as its own issue. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument with this, indeed intimate partner violence is very much a women's issue. As I see it, this is the flagship article of the project, which should direct readers to all the relevant areas. I have not quite decided where that fits best. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While not required references would be good in the lead. This would make the lead more stand alone and thus easier to translate into other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tended to avoid this to date. Incidentally other language versions are surprisingly non existent. I think lead sections are for those not sufficiently interested in reading further. However they should reflect the subsequent text accurately and succinctly. By providing a detailed bibliography, such a reader could pursue the topic further. Its just one of those stylistic things and I prefer to be consistent in my GAs etc.! Just less clutter. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As part of this effort a number of us are working to improve and reference leads of the EN articles for translation into other languages. Would be interested in adding this one to the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I am mainly involved in the opposite process, bringing articles into WPen. What is the connection between references in leads and translation. In my experience it just adds more clutter in the References section when the same statement is cited in duplicate.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Women's health/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: I've read the article and will take this on. Given that the article is visibly far above the required standard, my comments will be few and brief. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm overwhelmed by your generosity! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The referencing is probably to FA standard.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Referencing is comprehensive. Spot checks all fine.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No sign of it. Other sites have made use of the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The coverage is indeed comprehensive as would be required for FAC.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There has been some recent editing by nom, but it has not been controversial.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. I'm personally not sure the logos add much to the article, but they are relevant and with wikilinked captions lead usefully to related materials.
7. Overall assessment. Happy to pass this excellent article.

Questions

[edit]

Logos

[edit]
  • Millennium Development Goal 5 (maternal health) traces to MDGs.jpg which is licensed as an editor's own work. Can this be correct?
Only in that I created MDG5.jpg out of the more complex MDGs.jpg. I agree that it is odd that that is labelled "own work" unless the editor is the original graphic artist. The original is at UN Millenium Goals and many other relevant UN materials. It is my understanding that the UN actively encourages the use of its materials for educational purposes, which this is.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since we doubt that the editor is the original graphic artist, the license appears to be wrong. Ideally we'd locate the UN statement licensing its materials freely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that I checked that at the time. I will see what I can come up with. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case, it is a bit of a grey area. The UN has a blanket policy "The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use". Very few websites specifically address the context of Wikipedia. WHO is similar "can be used for private study or for educational purposes without permission". Every WHO programme I have worked with encouraged dissemination of material for obvious reasons. Other related icons bear {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} with the statement "The official icons of the sixty seven MDGs are copyleft and can be freely re-edited and used for information about the MDGs". But I am not sure of the source of this statement, to date.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Logos. It was a struggle to find illustrations that actually add to the article. Since the focus is on the global perspective and the UN programmes are a powerful initiative and make a good focal point.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much, and agree they can stay, but we should make sure (specially if FAC is in mind) they are properly licensed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The SDGs are allowed to be used for informational uses (primarily illustrative, and not intended to raise funds). If the MDGs are similar (I can't find guidelines for their icons), this wouldn't be sufficient for Commons; it might be ok for Wikipedia with a non-free usage rationale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image could be moved to Wkipedia and deleted from Commons. Generally logos have been allowed for limited usage if illustrating an article about the organisation or programme. Thanks for the link I knew I had seen it somewhere. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should do that then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that is not that easy since Commons files used on WP pages are automatically added to WP files, so one cannot upload the identical image. Do you know how one can have the file on WP and not Commons without deleting the Commons file and then starting again from scratch? Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will also contact UN directly --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could upload a very slightly cropped image to WP, and ask for the other image to be deleted as a duplicate! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the stated author, who clarified that they are not the actual author amd pointed to the following as the permission: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ so I updated the file. does that change anything? Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The non-commercial statement makes it clear that it shouldn't be on Commons. We can clearly use it with an NFUR on Wikipedia, so we can either do that or remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also found the following statement on the SDG website: "You can share the following image with your friends on your social networks, or post them on your website or blog, to raise awareness of the importance of the key events happening in 2015."--Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's non-commercial only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just received an email from the UN permissions office authorising their use. I will add that to the files shortly.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, sorry it was a hassle but I'm sure it has saved a fuss later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family planning

[edit]
  • The Malaysia family planning image traces to Stephen Codrington's website, which says the images are free for non-profit purposes; the Commons page says his permission has been given. I think this requires an OTRS ticket for Commons.
Not sure how big a problem that is? I took in good faith at the time especially since it has been widely used. Did you want me to initiate this? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge backlog there and it may take many months to resolve Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we can either just go ahead since that's in hand (same wd apply to the other image), or more safely hide the images until ready. I doubt you'd get through FAC with these issues, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted author directly and added writen permission to file --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that one's done then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]

Since the lead section has five paragraphs, I don't see how this complies with WP:LEAD, one of the GA criteria, which sets the ceiling for GAs at four paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed up the last two paragraphs for formal compliance, though frankly I'm half inclined to do a Jimmy Wales here and ignore the rules when they don't help too much, it is the most minor of all imaginable infractions, and the (old) paragraphing matched the article's structure well. Whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reflecting the structure of the article was the guiding principle in the lead - I don't think a four paragraph rule works well in comprehensive articles. Maybe it should be revisited. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White space at the top of the article

[edit]

There's extra white space at the very top of the article that shouldn't be there. I think the sidebar template {{Women's health sidebar}} is the problem, as deleting it gets rid of the extra white space. (I used the "show preview" feature to figure that out.) Obviously that's not an acceptable solution, so does anyone have an idea of how to fix it? AmericanLemming (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but is that big of a problem?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, on substituting a variety of other sidebars, some do - some don't.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Log

[edit]

Revisions reviewed January 6 2017. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Women's health. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of women's health

[edit]

This article doesn't have a separate section about how women's health has changed over time. This book might be a good source if someone wants to add historical information:

Barbara., Ehrenreich, (2005). For her own good : two centuries of the experts' advice to women. English, Deirdre. (2nd Anchor books ed ed.). New York: Anchor Books. ISBN 1400078008. OCLC 57688414. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Globalize issue about "Cancer" section

[edit]

The "Cancer" section seems to be about United States.

  • The sentance "By the 1950s the decline in uterine cancer left breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death till it was overtaken by lung cancer in the 1980s. All three cancers (lung, breast, uterus) are now declining in cancer death rates (Siegel et al. Figure 8)" uses the reference Siegel et al Cancer statistics, 2016. That reference is about United States, not about all the world.

--Wolfch (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsupported claim

[edit]

Nobody provided citation to 

Nevertheless, there are several areas of health where women report earlier and more severe disease with poorer outcomes.

for couple months now, I am going to remove the unsupported claim. Londondare (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: MIT 398 Intercultural International Communication

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2023 and 5 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ketchupandmayyonaise (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ketchupandmayyonaise (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_health&oldid=1193716316"