Talk:G-spot/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article was only assessed briefly in 2007. It is unclear that it met the GA criteria then, and subsequent edits have been a mix of helpful additions and gradual deterioration. The lead is manifestly inadequate, and the article is currently unbalanced by the emphasis on the research of Emmanuele Jannini. The excessive focus on whether the G-spot "exists" (whatever that means) is unhelpful. It certainly exists as a concept and this article should document what reliable sources, of all kinds, have had to say about it throughout its history. Geometry guy 22:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC), 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to fix problems with the body of the article (e.g. words to avoid) so that what is left is neutral and sourced (apart from one claim, which I think needs to be sourced rather than removed for the sake of neutrality). My edits can of course be reverted if they have not improved the article. I haven't addressed the lead. This article is clearly not a GA, and I intend to delist shortly, unless someone with sources and passion for high quality neutral articles steps forwards. Geometry guy 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead does not summarize the article, and is not neutral. Editors should also watch out for "words to avoid" adding bias to factual statements: let the reader decide!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   One or two of the sources are not particularly good, and the article relies a bit too much on material by proponents (Whipple, Perry et al.) and detractors (mainly Hines). There's also an important statement that is unsourced and it could be argued that there's some synthesis here. Overall, though, this isn't the main problem with the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There's essentially no coverage of the history and sociology of the concept (beyond its origins, and the implicit suggestion of disagreement).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The lead isn't neutral, but it is more important to brush up the rest of the article: neutrality will be improved by improving the sourcing and the broadness. The lead should then write itself.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Obviously an article like this attracts vandalism, but I checked back over a year through the edit history, and found it to be very well maintained.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article has been delisted per above. Geometry guy 10:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Title Change

This article should be listed under female prostate, not under a euphemism.

Agreed. Especially if "G spot" is just the marketing title of a book, and FICAT has adopted the new term, as described in #current_definition_is_inaccurate_and_outdated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.79 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)