Yooda said:
Read the second paragraph of the article. You could read the article directly at:
Wikipedia- Adult Diapers. I probably should have put these links in this thread's first post. Better late than never.
So, I'm afraid you've missed my point here... The article reads: "Adult Diapers can be necessary for adults with, or in, various conditions and circumstances..." It's clearly intended to say "with incontinence," there's a gaping hole (in a rather literal sense, a literal space where it should be after the word "with") there where incontinence isn't mentioned until rather far into the article.
EDIT: Okay, so, the last time I looked at the article, I could have sworn there was an extra space after with, before the comma, where "incontinence" would have been (and I think it previously was there), but it appears to be gone now?
Additionally, as others have alluded to, typical Wikipedia style does a very brief, one or two paragraph summary, before diving into deeper details. You're diving into heavy detail, and in particular, detail that doesn't relate to traditional incontinence (which is arguably the primary usage for adult diapers, and as such, should probably come first), far too early in the article. Functional incontinence deserves recognition, but isn't the primary reason for the use of adult diapers. A more general mention of incontinence should come first, with such detail provided later, outside of the introduction, and probably after a similar amount of detail has been provided for other reasons for the usage of adult diapers. As also mentioned by others, incontinence as a reason for functional incontinence doesn't make much sense. I would say that a simple mention of incontinence and other basic things should follow "with" in that early phrase, as I think it did prior to your edit. Without it there, the sentence is convoluted and incredibly confusing.
Also, you're using Southern Early Childhood as a source, and it's hard to get more unreliable than that. If you browse their site, and take the time to read their articles to the end, you'll find that almost all of its articles show the hallmarks of having been written by a large language model/AI, starting on one subject, and kind of meandering around it, but not quite sticking to it, saying numerous nonsensical things about adjacent subjects, before finally veering to a completely separate subject altogether, within the same article. The longer the article goes on, the more confusing, nonsensical, and off-topic it gets, as is typical for lengthy question and answer sessions with AIs. For instance, it might be an article about adult diapers, and it'll suddenly veer into talking about potty training children or baby diapers (such as here:
https://www.southernearlychildhood....k-like-diapers-exploring-the-factors-at-play/), or it's an article about children and diapers, and it'll suddenly veer into talking about adults and even ABDLs. While I don't think it touches on that, this is one article that has many great examples of jumping around and saying nonsensical things...almost the entire article is marketing blurbs, copied and pasted together, and at one point, while talking about sizing, it calls GoodNites "shoes;" it also jumps over to talking about pull-ups, the exercise:
https://www.southernearlychildhood....ll-up-diapers-for-children-and-parents-alike/ With regard to its articles about children and diapers, plenty of those are innocent enough, aside from sudden topic changes, but some of them are rather disturbing, judging strictly from the titles, going into subjects such as tutorials on how to get kids to like diapers. Welcome to what happens when you have an AI diving too deep into a subject and just generating as much content as it possibly can. It seems like whoever was creating these articles (which may not have even been a person...you can get an AI to control another AI, so the entire process could have been, and probably was, automated) fed an AI a series of questions, and then used those questions as section headings for articles, with the answers to those questions being the content for those sections. This seems to be the main reason the subject jumps around so much, because the AI answering those questions probably didn't know it was all meant to go into the same article about a single subject.
The specific article you cited makes a number of dubious claims, such as stating that Amazon facilities don't have bathrooms of their own (while elsewhere in the same article, talking about Amazon's bathrooms), and that employees are encouraged to use nearby public restrooms at other businesses. Or that diapers are a required part of their uniform (many people may wear diapers, but they're not part of the uniform). Articles on this site are also prone to referencing and quoting very specific personal stories about people's experiences, without context about what the people are saying or even who the people are. They've clearly been lifted by an AI from existing articles elsewhere, and are just being spat back out with minimal alterations and no context. For instance, the article you cited mentions something about "at Kyle's warehouse," without having mentioned Kyle previously or ever again. It also makes an odd mention of an "event" at the end of that paragraph that makes little sense. Or, in a section talking about whether or not showers are available at Amazon, it seems to quote some sort of workplace documentation wholesale, for the entire paragraph, about how bike cages are available, and other amenities for bikers, before finally mentioning in passing that there is a shower for bikers. Another giveaway about the dubious nature of the site is that literally every single article has the same author, Sharon, with no last name, producing stunning numbers of articles in a single day. Her LinkedIn link below her picture also doesn't lead to a valid account.
I'm afraid this simply isn't a valid source for a Wikipedia article.
EDIT: I found another great example of how it wanders away from its subjects. I'm just throwing this here because it's comically bad. This article manages to start with an article about the resemblance of white underwear to diapers, and ends with asking whether or not vaginal discharge is a sign of pregnancy.
https://www.southernearlychildhood....k-like-diapers-exploring-the-factors-at-play/
Please note that I welcome improvements to the article, and I value your enthusiasm for the subject, and the effort you've put in, but this needs significant work and better sources. Boy, I sound like someone on a Wikipedia talk page, don't I? I know it can be easy to take negative feedback personally, and it looks like you're getting a fair bit... Allow me to direct you to this video, which is one, pretty neat, but also provides some good perspective on the importance of negative feedback. It is an hour long, but it's worth a watch, even if you split it into two days (halfway through is a great place to pause).
