Talk:Male infertility crisis
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2020. |
Added additional content edit
Added new content with various sections. Usage of the term. History and development of the issue. Different viewpoints and responses.
Running4uni (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
China? edit
See also this FT report (alas, paywalled) about similar problems in China: https://www.ft.com/content/d4b5325c-abad-11e6-ba7d-76378e4fef24
This Newsweek article also mentions China and Japan, but without giving sources: https://www.newsweek.com/2017/09/22/male-infertility-crisis-experts-663074.html
-- The Anome (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Holy shit edit
Holy shit, you guys. Who wrote this article? They can’t possibly be a native English speaker. Subject/verb tense disagreements, tautologies, and unnecessary repetition abound. This whole thing is a friggin’ dumpster fire. It’s honestly so bad that I think it’s going to be the thing that finally spurs me to make an account and become a Wikipedia editor.
What the fuck do half these sentences even mean?? Additionally, lots of the assertions and statistics presented here are patently false (i.e., skewed in a way that minimizes the extent of the titular crisis).
How has this article remained so bad for so long?! The mind boggles.
Regards,
A Wikipedian now, I guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.33.139 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @107.15.33.139:: Your edits seem good (and are much appreciated) but why did you remove the references from that one statement? jp×g 03:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Cleanup edit
In response to the unnecessarily whiney comment above, I have gone through the article to reorganize ideas and correct grammar and syntax. A double-check is needed to ensure that the article flows more cleanly and that there is no abnormal grammar. I also noticed that this article lacks a standardized WP:ENGVAR (I'd recommend {{use British English}}), and cites non-WP:MEDRS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)