Talk:Contraception (medical methods)/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris Day (subpages does this now) |
imported>Catherine Woodgold (→Comments: Questioning a sentence in the draft re any time of the cycle) |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
To me, the article "feels" like it was written by an abstinance advocate and needs some tweaking for neutrality yet. | To me, the article "feels" like it was written by an abstinance advocate and needs some tweaking for neutrality yet. | ||
Ran out of time and patience, and plan to take a fresh look later [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:52, 14 May 2008 (CDT) | Ran out of time and patience, and plan to take a fresh look later [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 14:52, 14 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
:::In the current draft it says "Pregnancy can result from intercourse after missing progestagen-only pills at any time of the cycle". It's not clear whether this means that the missing of pills is at any time of the cycle, or that the intercourse is at any time of the cycle. I doubt pregnancy can actually result from intercourse at any time of the cycle; (Normally, advice to avoid unprotected intercourse at all times of the cycle is more because one doesn't know with certainty what part of the cycle one is in, than because pregancy can actually result at any time). This sentence seems to imply that pregnancy can't result from missing pills after intercourse: I doubt that, too. [[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 16:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:00, 11 July 2009
Clean restart
Can I just note that this Draft is open for editing and improvement, without restrictions. There are certainly imperfections in the article, - so just go for it. Get it better. It needs copyediting and enriching; most changes and all minor changes don't need discussion.Gareth Leng 10:04, 13 February 2008 (CST)
- Thank you so much for the go-ahead, Gareth, and for archiving the talk page. I really appreciate it.
- I'm now starting to implement some of the changes I had suggested on May 19 and 20, 2007. Everyone, please feel free to revert selected changes, with or without explanation since these are minor changes; if I happen to think something is important I might ask you about it. --Catherine Woodgold 18:58, 14 February 2008 (CST)
mechanism/mechanisms
Re a minor change to the approved version:
The approved version said "The mechanism of action for combination pills (estrogen-progestin) and progestin-only pills are different." It was pointed out that "mechanism ...are" is grammatically incorrect, and suggested to add an "s" to the end of "mechanism".
An editor approved the following change: "I'd vote for "The mechanisms are different" and unless there is any further objection, Stephen (or someone else) may kindly fix it. Supten 01:53, 25 September 2007 (CDT)"
However, the change actually implemented by a constable was this: "The mechanism of action for combination pills (estrogen-progestin) is different than the mechanism of action for progestin-only pills." This changes a lot more than one letter. It isn't the change approved by Supten, and it contains the expression "different than," which is considered by many speakers to be grammatically incorrect, or to be accepted in spoken language only but not written language. (See here.)
I suggest that a constable change the sentence to what I understand Supten to have approved, i.e. "The mechanisms of action for combination pills (estrogen-progestin) and progestin-only pills are different." (exactly the same as the original approved version except that a letter "s" has been added to "mechanism".) --Catherine Woodgold 18:59, 15 February 2008 (CST)
- Changed in the Approved version per Supten and brought to my attention. D. Matt Innis 19:41, 15 February 2008 (CST)
Comments
I'm not implementing this suggestion now. Would need verification: The section "Pregnancy rates after IUD removal" could also mention the possibility of pregnancy if the IUD is removed within the 2 weeks following intercourse (for those IUDs that act by preventing implantation); perhaps this a reason for removing the IUD during the menstrual period, and that might be worth mentioning as well. --Catherine Woodgold 20:22, 19 February 2008 (CST)
Third paragraph of section "Hormonal medications (systemic): It said, "Since hormonal contraceptives affect the menstrual cycle, these have been prescribed for women who have problems with excessive or irregular menstrual bleeding for several decades - even if the women are celibate." No one has commented whether "for several decades" applies to the act of prescribing or the act of bleeding. I've assumed the former and gone ahead and changed the sentence accordingly. --Catherine Woodgold 20:35, 19 February 2008 (CST)
- I have tried to trim this page down without effecting the meaning too much, or when it seemed in error.
Thus, they reduce pregnancy in women (not couples, single women can get pregnant, but never men), I removed sexually active (thinking about rape victims too).
To me, the article "feels" like it was written by an abstinance advocate and needs some tweaking for neutrality yet. Ran out of time and patience, and plan to take a fresh look later David E. Volk 14:52, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
- In the current draft it says "Pregnancy can result from intercourse after missing progestagen-only pills at any time of the cycle". It's not clear whether this means that the missing of pills is at any time of the cycle, or that the intercourse is at any time of the cycle. I doubt pregnancy can actually result from intercourse at any time of the cycle; (Normally, advice to avoid unprotected intercourse at all times of the cycle is more because one doesn't know with certainty what part of the cycle one is in, than because pregancy can actually result at any time). This sentence seems to imply that pregnancy can't result from missing pills after intercourse: I doubt that, too. Catherine Woodgold 16:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)