Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC).

Menstrual cycle

 * Notified: EMsmile, WikiProject Sanitation, WP Medicine, WP Anatomy, WP Biology, WP Women’s Health, 2021-01-24
 * FAR commentary found at
 * Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 3 and
 * Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 4.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a 2004 promotion from the “Refreshing Brilliant Prose” phase that was last reviewed in 2008 and has never been at current FA standards. There is considerable uncited text, UNDUE text, and most of the sources are not up to snuff per WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDDATE; additional detail on talk. The article does not stay tightly focused on the topic, and also omits coverage of closely related areas (eg In other animals). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * One thing that I noticed about this article a little while ago when I first looked at it, is that there was some overlap with the article on menstruation. So I think both articles should be looked at hand in hand as they need to fit together snugly and not have too much overlap. The article on menstruation used to have lower view rates than the article on menstrual cycle but has caught up recently, see |Menstrual_cycle here. Could the reason be that the quality of the article "menstruation" has improved relative to "menstrual cycle" or that it is linked more from other articles? Anyway, I just wanted to flag that the two articles should be looked at together. EMsmile (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There is considerable discussion on talk of other problems, including structure of the article which treats menstruation basically like a disease state. Many of the sources used are extremely dated (see WP:MEDDATE) or are not WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS, much less high quality MEDRS. Prose is rough; redundancies like “however”, “subsequently” abound. There are numerous short stubby paragraphs. The article looks like some student editors got hold of it an chunked in their favorite theories based on primary studies. Additional issues at the article, where sources are misrepresented, may be a result of WP:ADVOCACY related to menstrual leave, which is biasing the article towards a disease state rather than a normal biological process. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove featured article status (edit on 8 March 2021: when I wrote this, I didn't understand how the process worked and that there was plenty of time to improve things before deciding). EMsmile (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Based on the discussions we are having on the talk page of menstrual cycle, it is very far from featured article status at this stage. We could bring it back up to featured article status eventually but it would take time. Does the process allow for such time? Probably not. Thus, bring it back down to "B" for now (?). Is that how the process works? EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * please have a look at the instructions at the WP:FAR page; Delist and Keep are not declared during the FAR phase. It is premature yet to say if Graham Beards or others (like Tom (LT)) might be able to salvage the article, and FAR is a deliberative process by design; the process allows as much time as needed, and sometimes it takes months to restore an article, but should Graham choose to work on the topic, he is more than capable of FA-level content.  Also, to answer your other question, FAR does not re-assess the quality of articles (to B, C, GA, etc) if a Featured article is delisted— that is a separate process.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah that's great. I was under the impression that it had to be decided quite "fast". If we have no particular deadline and we have people who are focusing on the FA-level content then all the better! EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards is making considerable and steady progress here; it remains to be seen if he will be permitted to work at FA standard. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update, very good progress, but Graham needs at least another week to get hold of more sources. In the interim, some other editors (yep, buck up everyone!) might read through for jargon checking. Y’all know who I’m looking at! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to review and be pinged when Graham's ready. Kudos to Graham for improving the article. At this current point the 'other animals' and 'society and culture' sections remain quite short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tom (LT) the section "society and culture" is short on purpose because we want readers to know that they can click through to other existing articles which cover that in great depth. And by the way, I don't think we should say there "further" but "main" and link them to menstruation. We certainly don't need detailed information here when the detailed information exists in a related Wikipedia article. Just key terms so that people get a rough idea. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not how articles, or FAs, are written, nor is that how the article has been edited. The Society and culture section is short because there is nothing else to say, so far. Please review WP:SS for how to use hatnotes. This article cannot be a main summary of content at menstruation because this article is about the reproductive cycle; there need not be a hatnote at all (just a link), since most of the content in the sub-articles is unrelated to the topic of this article, upon which we should stay tightly focused. The criteria for featured articles are outlined at WP:WIAFA; we don’t decide what to include or not in an article based on what we hope or think readers will click on, and the article is not being edited “to give people a rough idea”; if there is anything else to say about a biological process that is covered in high quality sources, it hasn’t been produced yet. The section is short because high quality sources offer little. A good deal of UNDUE and poorly sourced content was removed, but remains in the sub-articles. If readers are clicking through to poorly sourced sub-articles, that is outside of the remit of *this* Featured article, which so far summarizes only information that is well sourced, on topic, not UNDUE, and not published in predatory journals (such content was removed). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A number of editors are confused between a subset of the entire reproductive cycle (menses or menstruation) and what this article is about which is the overall reproductive cycle in females. Your assistance in sorting out the issues from an anatomy standpoint would be helpful; some editors want this article to be about menstruation rather than the entire cycle, of which menses is one small part, and if we have to merge in the poorly written, poorly organized and poorly sourced content from menstruation, we have a C-class article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the menstruation article should be seen as a "subset" of menstrual cycle at all! You are looking at it purely from a biological standpoint. I look at it from a woman's life & society standpoint. In my view the article menstruation should be broad and overarching, it covers a range of topics, and looks at menstruation from different angles, including how women feel, how they deal with it, how society looks on it etc. For me the menstrual cycle article is a "smaller" more narrow article that is purely focused on what exactly which hormone does at which point of the cycle, so purely medical/biological/anatomical - whichever you want to call it. Therefore, it does NOT need a section on "society and culture". That belongs to menstruation (I would still argue to link the two articles clearly together; to me they belong together like a jigsaw puzzle; but I guess this whole notion that one will be FA quality whereas the other will be C quality gets in the way). - I still think merging them together might solve some of the problems.   EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Menstrual cycle uses summary style correctly to cover multiple phases of the reproductive cycle; these include the follicular phase, ovulation, ovarian cycle, the luteal phase and many others. Menstruation is one part, among those many others, all of which are summarized.  Whatever the quality assessment of any of those other articles is, *this* article has to meet WP:WIAFA, which so far it is.  What the menstruation article should be (or any of the many sub-topics) is not in the remit of this review; it is one of many sub-articles.  In terms of which hatnote to use, when an article is not using WP:SS to summarize the entire contents of another article, further is more appropriate than main.   The approach to this article is not “purely” anatomical, biological or medical; it is, as it should be, based on sources.  The entire reproductive cycle is not menstruation, and menstruation, like every subset of the entire topic, has its own article. Some of the desires expressed on talk to bring in off-topic material from menstruation (but not from follicular phase, luteal phase, ovulation, or anything else) appear to be driven by issues beyond this article. Menstrual cycle, not the narrower one; it encompasses the entire reproductive cycle, of which menstruation (as all the other sub-articles) are subsets.  The purpose for and work on this page is about menstrual cycle, not the sub-articles, and whether this article meets WP:WIAFA, which it will and does as long as Graham is permitted to finish.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I can see I have stirred up a hornet's nest here. I wasn't aware of mensturation but I did find the (now absent) two sentence society and culture section jarring (my opinion is either include as a summary style paragraph or not at all, but that the very brief sentences were quite jarring). Please ping me when Graham's done and I will have a look. As he's still editing I think it may be somewhat annoying for me to review as he goes things that he may already plan to edit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi There is another book on its way to me by snail mail, but I doubt if I will need it. So, when you have time could you comment? Perhaps the article Talk Page would be the best venue as that's where most of the discussions are underway. Thank.Graham Beards (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Update, jargon review time:. The article has been considerably reworked (heavy lifting by Graham); see the article talk page. . It would be very helpful to get layperson feedback on the prose at this stage. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very bare-bones, but maybe that's ideal for keeping the cruft out. Seems reasonably understandable to this fairly educated but non-expert reader. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It covers everything you would expert to see in a standard (expensive) textbook.Graham Beards (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Progress ongoing, with numerous editors engaged on the article talk page; Tom (LT) is helping fine tune the anatomy, prose checking continues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking good, but waiting for feedback from an endocrinology professor, see work on article talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Another week is needed for feedback from external expert review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And maybe a couple of days to correct the article and find WP:MEDRS sources. Graham Beards (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Progress is slow but steady, still waiting for external expert review to wrap up (which has been very helpful), and need at least another few weeks, probably two or three. This has been a fortuitous two-fer: a Featured article review and an external expert peer review combined, thanks to Clayoquot. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the progress looking?Blue Jay (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See above, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Work is close to wrapping up now if others would like to have a look. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC, a very nice save, mostly thanks to the effort by, who took the lead in restoring this to featured status.  reviewed the anatomy,  and  helped review the medical content, and  was instrumental in securing an external peer review by content-area experts, and  kept a helpful and watchful eye.  A fine effort and a fine save at FAR (let’s see more of same for other medical FAs!!!).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC, important save! FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC, a example of teamwork at its best. Graham Beards (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Close without FARC the amount of improvement that was done here is incredible. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.