Jump to content

Talk:Childbirth/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Image

Not a big fan of this image. It appears to be supporting episiotomies which are not supported by the evidence. Thus IMO we should remove it as undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking for an alternative, might not find one until after the holidays. CFCF (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO the photo of the newborn is perfectly acceptable for the lead. It is very unusual for the lead to contain two photos/illustrations and I see no reason that this article should. CFCF has suggested that I am objecting to the illustration of crowning because I object to nudity. That is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the newborn picture is really appropriate, it doesn't illustrate childbirth it illustrates an infant the subject of another article. The image mentioned here is much better but I agree it should be changed re episiotomy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
A photo of a newborn illustrates the second stage of labor. I certainly see no problem with using a newborn in the lead to illustrate childbirth. I looked at all of the "childbirth" illustration/photos, and I could not find anything more appropriate. I object to sterile hospital birth photos because they do not represent a world view. Gandydancer (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with a newborn in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The second stage of labor is complete when the baby is fully expelled. The photo does not show a baby that has just been fully expelled. It shows a newborn that has been cleaned and had it's umbilical cord cut and a dressing applied. It does not show a woman (an integral part of childbirth). It does not in any way illustrate the process of childbirth which is the subject of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I favor this image. It shows exactly what to expect and it says "possible location of episiotomy", a common occurrence these days; it provides information without undue weight. I find no problem with the newborn infant, it is the expected outcome of the childbirth process. - Boneyard90 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer I do not wish to insinuate anything, but seeing as two images of the birthing process were completely removed from the article I reacted to this. If I object to anything it was that the image was removed entirely along with a large swathe of text from the infobox. I personally accept that an image of a newborn is a good illustration for the lede of childbirth and I also restored it, but also restored the other image. The larger question is if an image of crowning or the process of birth is needed, and I believe it is essential. Whether or not that is in the lede is another matter. Feel free to move the image out of the lede, but do not delete itDone. I have candidates for replacement, but I won't have them up until after the holidays. CFCF (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Jmh649I suggest this image by Frank Netter (not copyrighted, will also have copyright situation reviewed) http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b466744;view=1up;seq=383 . Additionally that same source has 2 images concerning episiotomy for that article. CFCF (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It is copyrighted though. All of Netter's work is under copyright. We have another 40 years I think before it is PD. He work is amazing. I would support something similar or this one if we could get the release. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked into the specifics, and there is no additional copyright notice for his images there, meaning they have lapsed into the public domain along with the book (on the other hand there are additional notices for some other images - you can look through this to be certain by searching for "copyright" in text only mode at the book page). I was shocked to see them free there, and there are potentially more of his freely available, looking into it. CFCF (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

How about File:Postpartum baby2.jpg, which is used in various other languages as the lead image? --WS (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Great suggestion. My favorite by far. Gandydancer (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of favorites, I searched around quite a bit and struck upon this image File:Infant at Childbirth.jpg which I think is even better for the lede. It is used on the French wikipedia, and really serves to illustrate the earliest moments after birth, when the infant is being moved to the mothers chest. CFCF (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I prefer [1] as it has the mother better illustrated in the image. But no strong feelings either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not aware that the lead image has been discussed in the past, it has been changed; I will revert the recent change to one that has been discussed. I did not care for the new one added because it features the birth attendant rather than the mother. I like the one that Doc suggested above and have used it. It's a good photo which shows the baby only moments after birth laying on the mother's chest. Gandydancer (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Extended content

Birth rotation image

Note this image concerning rotations of the child at birth. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete sentence re psychology of pain

I have put a lot of thought into this sentence regarding pain: "A psychological influence is supported by studies that found the amount of anaesthesia required and the pain levels were decreased through the use of hypnosis.[4]" and I'm going to remove it. In the first place, this systematic review done in 2012 claims that there is not sufficient evidence to say whether it does or does not work. [2] That is not saying that I don't think it works - my best guess is that it does work for some women. A lot of things help, and certainly a woman who has prepared herself by learning relaxation techniques, has a support system set up, etc., is going to be much more able to handle the discomfort. But what I really don't like about it is the fact that it seems to suggest that the pain of contractions is all in a woman's head - not that it says that, but a person who has never given birth may take it to mean just that. It seems to me that the statement is just stating the obvious, and I see no reason to do that for this childbirth article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New illustration

Positive feedback is the amplification of a body’s response to a stimulus. For example, in childbirth, when the head of the fetus pushes up against the cervix (1) it stimulates a nerve impulse from the cervix to the brain (2). When the brain is notified, it signals the pituitary gland to release a hormone called oxytocin (3). Oxytocin is then carried via the bloodstream to the uterus (4) causing contractions, pushing the fetus towards the cervix eventually inducing childbirth.

A new illustration has been added with info that states:

Positive feedback is the amplification of a body’s response to a stimulus. For example, in childbirth, when the head of the fetus pushes up against the cervix (1) it stimulates a nerve impulse from the cervix to the brain (2). When the brain is notified, it signals the pituitary gland to release a hormone called oxytocin (3). Oxytocin is then carried via the bloodstream to the uterus (4) causing contractions, pushing the fetus towards the cervix eventually inducing childbirth.

I would like to see RS for this information before we include it in this article. We still do not understand exactly what triggers labor to start though it has been suggested that the infant may put out hormones that signal the mother to begin to produce oxytocin, which starts uterine contractions. At that point a positive feedback mechanism may kick in, though I've never seen it to be related to the head of the fetus pushing "up against the cervix." This wording, "pushing the fetus towards the cervix eventually inducing childbirth" is odd and far from anything meaningful as well. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes needs a source. Appears to be a high school class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, yes--I see she's gone...cute ponytail and all... Gandydancer (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, this is indeed an educational project. I'm the lead editor (teacher) for the project that this image was created for. Thanks for the "feedback". I agree the wording needs tweaked. As far as a reliable source, this is common example for positive feedback in many Biology and Physiology textbooks. Would H.M Goodman, 2008. "Basic Medical Endocrinology, Fourth Edition" Academic Press. page 23-24 be an acceptable source in your view? See source: https://books.google.com/books?id=gjpi2MYVKGAC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=positive+feedback+oxytocin+childbirth&source=bl&ots=p3KY3R3MXQ&sig=JIBI2y90izMg0BZUXzSR9KA2OBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yV5uVZ2aE4KFsAXEvoDIBQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=positive%20feedback%20oxytocin%20childbirth&f=false Earthdirt (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the mechanism explanation needs to be redone. Do you want to write something up here and we can work together for some good wording? Gandydancer (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Childbirth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Childbirth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives to abortion redirect page

Why does this page redirect to childbirth instead of contraception or birth control? Jarble (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Normal" birth

I'm replacing normal with "vaginal" being that it is more medically descriptive. Using "normal" may infer that this is the only correct way or the right way to give birth. Beccabeckett (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Childbirth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Childbirth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image that came through the Wiki Science Competition

First breath of a child being born by cesarean section.

Leaving this image here in case editors of this page find it useful. Uploaded by the photographer for the Wiki Science Competition (it was one of the finalists in its category). Leaving the same message at Talk:Caesarean section. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Maternal complications section

There is nary a reference in the maternal complications section which needs to be fixed. I removed the following most concerning part immediately:

Vaginal birth injury with visible tears or episiotomies are common. Internal tissue tearing as well as nerve damage to the pelvic structures lead in a proportion of women to problems with prolapse, incontinence of stool or urine and sexual dysfunction. Fifteen percent of women become incontinent, to some degree, of stool or urine after normal delivery, this number rising considerably after these women reach menopause. Vaginal birth injury is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of all non hysterectomy related prolapse in later life. Risk factors for significant vaginal birth injury include:

  • A baby weighing more than 9 pounds (4.1 kg).
  • The use of forceps or vacuum for delivery. These markers are more likely to be signals for other abnormalities as forceps or vacuum are not used in normal deliveries.
  • The need to repair large tears after delivery.

Does anyone have any suggestions or good sources for information? Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Wikipedia. I found a good place to start work on this section right here on WP: Puerperal disorder.

Friedman's Curve

In our article we state:

Active phase prolongation is defined as in a primigravid woman as the failure of the cervix to dilate at a rate of 1.2 cm/h over a period of at least two hours. This definition is based on Friedman's Curve, which plots the typical rate of cervical dilation and fetal descent during active labour.[45] Some practitioners may diagnose "Failure to Progress", and consequently, propose interventions to optimize chances for healthy outcome.[46]

I understand that this guideline is no longer a standard rule.

WHO says:

One of the key new recommendations in this guideline recognizes that every labour is unique and that they do not all progress at the benchmark rate of 1 cm/hour of cervical dilatation. This benchmark rate has been used for decades and on a partograph alerts the birth attendant that labour is progressing abnormally when it is not achieved. In recognizing that this rate of dilatation may be unrealistic for some women, the guideline recommends that this factor alone should not be a routine indication for medical intervention to accelerate labour or expedite birth. WHO anticipates that this new recommendation will help to substantially reduce the growing rate of unnecessary caesarean sections that has currently reached an epidemic proportion.

The ref used (#45) also states that the old guideline is no longer considered correct, if I understand the small part that is available for me to read. Could this be discussed and changed if need be? WHO source: [3] Gandydancer (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about our article's up-to-date accuracy in this area. Blogs are good sources for women to read as they approach their due date but we should take our job seriously when it comes to the ability to provide accurate up-to-date information. From the reading that I have done Friedman's Curve should be part of the past in the same way that snatching babies from their medically sedated mother's womb and placing them in a nursery and feeding them sugar water. I found this info today from Medscape: [4] Also note that at the end they discuss the 30 minute placenta delivery guideline.
I have been going through this article mostly using WHO's new 2018
WHO recommendations Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. I'm quite impressed with it - it seems to be very well written and well researched. It would be a good read for all editors that are interested in childbirth. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hypnobirthing

It would be great if someone who has worked on this article could add a couple of sentence about hypnobirthing. Currently hypnobirthing redirects to hypnotherapy which is not good enough. I am really surprised there is no article about hypnobirthing yet. By the way, I love the images that you have used in the article so far, particularly the one in the lead. It is "spot on" and portrays this as a loving, personal and positive event, rather than a medicalised, scary and painful event (which it often gets portrayed as, sadly). Thanks to the previous editors! EMsmile (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We do have a link at the bottom of the article to Water birth. Yes, this photo was something that we all agreed to with very little disagreement. I like a lot as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I see now that you have a range of interesting articles to the "natural birth" topics under "See also". But I am not a big fan of such long and somewhat arbitrary "See also" lists. I reckon what is needed is a section in the main text called something like "natural birthing approaches" (or a better term) which would briefly summarises the sub-articles such as waterbirth, natural birth (which is a somewhat silly term, I know, but I can't think of a better one right now). As it stands at the moment, the article focuses very much on just the medical and physiological aspects. You could even just have a sub-heading under "Society and culture". I think it is wrong to only mention waterbirth in the See also, but not in the main text (same for some of the other terms that are currently listed under See also). EMsmile (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be a good addition. I see that we list four under Natural birth topics. Would you care to write something up? Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I can give it a go but if someone else is faster, please go ahead! What should be the title of the sub-section? "Natural birthing"? "Low intervention birthing"? Also, I see we have a section called Support under "Management". Some of the information there could be overlapping and should perhaps be moved to Society and culture. Or to a new section on History. Or one could argue that the section on natural birthing should become part of the same section where we have the "Support" information. EMsmile (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's add a history section

I think we also need a history section. I suggest to start up a small one and refer to other sub-articles that probably cover this. E.g. there is a little bit of information under "support" that refers to the fact that men didn't used to be present (although this is likely written with a Western mindset - I bet in many other parts of the world, men are still not present to this day). It's tricky (and important) that this article has a global perspectives (at the moment is has a U.S. and Europe bias, like many articles of Wikipedia). At this stage, I am just flagging this, it is not exactly my area of expertise but I'd love to work on this with like-minded people and ensure the article also makes sense for someone reading it who's from Kenya or India... I see this article as a top level article that needs to refer to relevant sub-articles, e.g. we might find some relevant information in other sub-articles that we should refer to (e.g. Abuse during childbirth which I will mention in the See Also list in the interim, and later include somewhere in the main text. - I guess overall I've noticed that this article does a great job describing how birth takes place in developed countries and what happens at a physiologial level to mother and baby, but is weak on making people aware of societal aspects: history, how it is in developing countries, natural birth. This is all covered in other sub-articles, we just need to sensible refer to them (and just listing them unter See Also is not sufficient).

If others agree that a history section would we sensible, then we could copy pieces from here or just refer across to this?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_childbirth#History (I am pretty sure that if I hunt around further, I might find further bits and pieces of history of childbirth in other Wikipedia articles which could be utilised or linked to). It would be interesting if we could also find something about the history of childbirth in countries outside of Europe, e.g. China, India. EMsmile (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have a good grasp of the issues and some good ideas on how to improve the article. BTW, in case you are not aware of it you will need to rewrite or attribute WP info from other articles. It's something that seems senseless to me but I get a friendly message every time I do it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, when you say "attribute", do you think just mentioning it in the edit summary, or something else?EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's the WP page that explains it: [5] Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made a start with the new history section. So much more could be added to it - would be great to get information from all parts of the world. (I forgot to mention "see that page's history for attribution" in the edit summary, hope that's not a big problem; I did add a link to the other page).EMsmile (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources:

The Journal of Perinatal Education https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730905 https://www.youtube.com/watch?V=adHVWAMsR7c Understanding Pregnancy and Birth Issues https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter08/artcles/winter08pg22-23.html Childbirth: how should women facing labor approach their birth plan https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282748.php Labor and Delivery https://www.pnmag.com/category/pregnancy/labor-delivery/ Ken2060917 (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Updates to the History Section

Hi all, I have done extensive research in order to add to the history section of this page. I will be posting my changes in small bits and will offer edit summaries where necessary. I did not change much other than removing one quotation that did not have context.I mostly just restructured and added. I recognize that the information I have added is still focused primarily on Western medicine, and while I do think it is an improvement, I agree that this page would benefit from additional information from other parts of the world. Please let me know if you have any recommendations or edits. Perrone.h (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Expansion Project

Hello, As a part of an assignment for school a group of us were assigned to include more cultural impacts in childbirth. We have been working on researching how childbirth differs across cultures, and will be making some edits over the next few days to provide a more rich cultural understanding of the topic. If there is anything that anyone thinks would be helpful please let me know. Amatteucci (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We have decided that we are going to make three edits to the page. We first are going to expand upon the "location" subheading of Culture and Society, in order to include more about cultures that are not as civilized and do not have access to hospitals. We are then going to expand upon the midwifery section to include a few more examples on the roles and duties of midwives. We are finally going to add a new section within the Culture and Society section, entitled "Alternative Birthing Practices in Non-Western Communities" which will talk about some of the unique processes that may be considered different in terms of how people from Western cultures see childbirth. With this section we encourage any interesting additions that people may have, and of course feedback is encouraged. Amatteucci (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To the power of 12 what is 9+10

I cant do maths 90.254.250.253 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

photo removed

I have removed the file from the crowning section. I have never seen it discussed in childbirth articles...it needs some sort of explanation in the article. Gandydancer Sectionworker (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not B-class

This is not a B-class article; there are outdated sections, and considerable uncited text. [6] I see there has been a good deal of student editing; posting to WP:ENB can be helpful when students don’t correctly cite text. There are also attribution issues and problems throughout with “recently” (see MOS:CURRENT). And there appears to be quite an emphasis on childbirth as it is practiced (medically, relative to home births) in certain countries, not entirely representative of the whole world. And even in the United States, some of us were having VBAC homebirths 40 years ago, so ... the “recently” usages need to be more date specific. The “Fetal complications” section starts with a list of five issues, and then is sub-sectioned to ... other things. The “Vaginal birth” section is very well presented, but has breaches of MOS:BOLD. It is also mostly uncited. There are extremely dated primary sources in some parts of the article. The article is approaching 10,000 words of prose (see WP:SIZE), which is unnecessary, as it goes well off-topic in sections like “Associated professions”, which by the way is entirely uncited except that it included an advertisement for a nanny service as a source. [7]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

How lucky we are to have such an expert to review this article. As a mother I'm satisfied with it but it is good to see such an excellent review. If students and their instructors were really worth their salt they would read and use it to improve the article. You can be sure that they won't. Gandydancer...Sectionworker (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Perrone.h.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ken2060917.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 22mross, Amatteucci.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 February 2019 and 13 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikigirl 0690.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kennedy.sim.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Work plan for Osmosis Nursing Wikipedia-editing course Summer 2022

This article has a few discrepancies in terminology such as there being three stages instead of four. I have changed a few vocabulary words to be more socially appropriate. There is a lot of information which may be better organized. Some points such as "birthing attendants" and their roles should be clarified better. Some sources are outdated and statistics need to be updated. A few categories, such as pain management need to be added to more. Mekuix (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Childbirth/Archive_3&oldid=1230964424"