Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal transplantation


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vaginal transplantation

 * ... that four women who received lab-grown vagina transplants recently reported normal function during sexual intercourse?
 * Reviewed: The Australian and New Zealand Association of Bellringers

Created by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 23:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New enough, long enough. Well cited, including the good hook. Comparing with the sources (all free online), no close paraphrasing or copyvios found. All good. Edwardx (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I pulled the hook from the queue due to misgivings about some of the medical content in the article. The hook is interesting and verified, and the if the article were about a nonmedical topic, I'd be happy to push this to the main page. The problem is that we need to apply higher standards to articles with medical information before they go on the main page (see WP:MEDRS). Concerns I have with this article (in the order that they appear in the article):
 * The lead sentence introduces the article as being about lab-grown vaginal transplantation, but then there is a one-sentence section about a vaginal wall implant of donor tissue. The lead and the article need to be consistent.
 * That sentence about the girl who got the vaginal wall implant from her mother is sourced to a 1993 article in a medical journal. The article appropriately describes it as a single case, but if Wikipedia is going to describe this case, we should not be relying on a single 21-year-old research report. Hasn't somebody discussed this case -- and possibly others -- in a review article?
 * The sources regarding the recent findings are news media articles. Can these be supplemented by something from a medically credible source (such as an editorial in a medical journal)?
 * Solid medical sourcing (ideally, a review article in a medical journal) is needed for the statements about "current techniques" that "rely on tissue harvested from other regions of the body" and that "can lead to unsatisfactory results or complications." Additionally, more context is needed for those statements -- it's not clear if the statement refers to current techniques for vaginal transplants (probably not) or current techniques for reconstruction of body parts in general (what I think it refers to). --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe all concerns have been address now, sorry for the delay. , please let me know if any additional concerns remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'll see what I can do about the traditional transplant case. It was a case study, so is unlikely to be subject to commentary, but has been cited a few times.  I believe this source would be an acceptable for the new procedure.  Please confirm.  I will correct/better source the lead and info about current techniques (actually refers to vaginoplasty, though it isn't clear as you say).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That NHS source that you identify would be a very good supplement to the existing sourcing in this article, both for the new procedure and for statements about previous attempts that were not so successful. The NHS is not a medical journal, but it is more credible as a medical source than the news outlets cited earlier. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good now. Nice work on an interesting topic. --Orlady (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)