Talk:Menstrual extraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
This clause is a little unclear to me 'modified the equipment used for manual vacuum aspiration at medical clinics for safe use by non-professionals.'
Should it read 'to make it safe for use by non-professionals'?Mumblio 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] modfied equipment
...it should probably just say "modified for use." nothing they did to modify it made it safer or less safe, or easier or harder for nonpros...the only real change was that they used a collection jar because they thought it felt better that way, and they let the woman having the ME hold the suction controls...so i guess they modified it for use by users? :-) Cindery 03:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] result of request for feedback
request for feedback on new article
Hi,
I wrote a new article called menstrual extraction, about a self-help technique developed by women before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Any advice/criticisms about how to improve it would be very welcome. (is it long enough? NPOV enough? Is it missing anything?)
Thanks, Cindery 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good article. I've made some suggestions on the Discussion page. XKMasada 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Some quick comments:
- You should explain what it is in the lead - comparing it to another technique doesn't really help. At the moment it is necessary to read half the article before it is defined.
- Try to use one style of citation - there is a Harvard style reference in the midst of the footnotes - and either remove the spaces between the punctuation and citations or include it consistantly
- The discovery of the yoghurt is presented as being used by the police as evidence of a criminal act - this needs explaining since possession of yoghurt is not a crime. What justification did the police use to present this as evidence? Without that explanation the article becomes POV.
- Although you mention other countries in the last paragraph the article is very US-centric. If you have little information about other countries you should still endeavour to make it clear when you are talking about the US. For example Wade v Roe didn't make abortion legal in other countries, so don't present it as a blanket statement.
- Although pictures are normally requested to increase an article's appeal, I think you can give that a miss. Yomanganitalk 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Which Chalker is being cited?
Article notes: "They toured the country introducing menstrual extraction to other women's groups, and the practice became quite popular – an estimated 20,000 procedures were performed (Chalker)." But there is one Chalker in the references (Chalker and Downer, A Woman's Book of Choices) and another Chalker in the footnotes (The Whats, Whys, and Hows of Menstrual Extraction). "(Chalker)" should be replaced with a footnote specifying which reference is being cited. XKMasada 09:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some suggestions
- Some additions should be made explaining the safety of the procedure.
- Excuse me, I'm a guy, and don't really understand this so well, but is menstrual extraction the same as menstrual regulation? Maybe the article could make this a bit clearer.
- A "See also" section of wikipedia links might also be useful.
-- XKMasada 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Menstrual extraction = MVA?
The article notes that menstrual extraction differs slightly in technical configuration from MVA. The MVA article notes that menstrual extraction is simply another name for MVA. It can't be both. Maybe a citation or a rewording could help clear it up, on both this article and the MVA article. XKMasada 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
