Talk:Contraception (medical methods)/Draft
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)