Talk:Chorioamnionitis

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Medicine: Pathology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pathology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Chorioamnionitis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): I. Ly, UCSF, B. Hyland 17, Sydney Martinelli, Richard.Ishimaru.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chorioamnionitis is a fetal disease. I'd like the opening sentence to reflect that. Any takers? Hovea 05:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. This article needs a lot of work. I am going to try to completely re-vamp it. I hope that doesn't offend anybody. I will of course keep it 100% evidenced based. Thanks so much. Majahops (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Tim[reply]

Ureaplasma

doi:10.1128/CMR.00091-16 JFW | T@lk 23:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2020 Group 2 proposed edits

Reformat the article to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards
Ensure proper citation of sources/update sources
Possibly add sections for microbiology, incidence, neonatal outcomes, prevention, and risk factors

I. Ly, UCSF (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I. Ly, UCSF and the rest of Group 2. Welcome! These sound like good goals for the article. I'll try to keep an eye on this talk page, so if you have questions about Wikipedia norms as you get to editing, feel free to ask me here (if I'm being slow to reply, you can post at my talk page). A suggestion: it's sometimes hard to tell what sections an article should have, and what order would help the information flow well. After some discussion in the distant past, several medical editors wrote out a trusty manual for organizing medicine-related articles. For articles related to a disease/syndrome, we recommend (n.b. it's not a requirement; just a suggestion) that you consider the sections listed here. Hopefully the suggestion helps you see where the article is missing information now. It's great to see new editors interested in medicine-related articles! I hope you all decide to stick around. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the guide for organizing medicine-related articles! Very helpful, we will generally try to follow these section headings. We appreciate having your eyes on the page as well. B. Hyland 17 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2020 Group 1 Peer Review

8/3/20 Peer Review - By Group 1 CAngerman (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CAngerman (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

· Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify: Be sure to double check all the sources used. When I tried to access source #1 it was a broken link to an error page. Quite a few of the other links are to pubmed articles..are these openly accessible? Some seem to be, but others I think might need a login — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAngerman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify: This article does a good job of remaining neutral. There is no attempts at persuading the reader towards a certain way of thinking and remains completely expository. However, the words "patient" and "patients" are used frequently throughout the article, giving it the tone that it is directed toward medical professionals instead of health information for the general public. Mhabtezion (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Overall, the article was organized well and included the most relevant information to help readers understand the condition. There were some use of medical jargon that may not be easily understood by the general audience (for example, "febrile" could be switched to "fever"). The word "patient" was mentioned several times and a detailed treatment plan with the drug and dose/route/frequency made it seem like it is directed towards healthcare professionals. Some sentences were wordy and hard to follow (for example, the 2nd paragraph of the intro). Disorder/Complications that are mentioned as a consequence of infection could contain links to lead them to the appropriate page. S.Huda, Future PharmD (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes..specify: In general, the article seems to be well cited which lessens the risk for unattributed plagiarism. I could not find any blatant acts of cited plagiarism or close paraphrasing as of yet. Some sources are not open source so cannot technically evaluate if something was plagiarized from those. Not sure if this is plagiarism, but the use of the terms from source 3 (second sentence) is directly from the pubmed article but remains confusing in this context. The Pubmed article used quotations to differentiate the two terms, which is removed in the article but makes less clear. It may be okay to use the same quotations since the terms are defined you cannot paraphrase them anyway. The source for signs and symptoms didn't seem to include maternal tachycardia BPM, might want to cite a source for that since it did not seem to appear in text (tachycardia did, not the 100BPM).Catherinerbarton (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]