Talk:Chromopertubation

Medicine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A. Duong-Le, Ahsieh3, A.Castro.UCSF, Ayee510. Peer reviewers: TNgo22, T.Truong.UCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations 2, 2021, Group 3 Goals & Proposed Edits

Enhance description of chromopertubation
Add images or better images to this article
Add qualifications for chromopertubation
Add to advantages/disadvantages section
Add signs and symptoms to diagnostic section A.Castro.UCSF (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations 2, 2021, Group 29 Peer Review

Part 1

Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

Yes, the group's edits have improved the article tremendously. They have added many different sections which help the reader to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the chromopertubation procedure. After reading this article, I feel like I have a better understanding of this topic. TNgo22 (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The group's edits have improved the article and made it more informative. The lead section is clear and easy to follow. The structure is organized and is in chronological order which makes it easy for readers to understand as well. Additionally, many sources were used to help gather all of the information in this article. T.Truong.UCSF (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article, I got a better understanding of the topic. All of the sections were described in simple terms that are easy to follow but also with relating medical terminology. Also, not only did the edits expand on the topic but it also expanded on alternatives in case some women would not qualify, making this article inclusive.TMendoza11 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the group made extensive improvement to the original article. A lot more information, sources, and pictures were added to the article. The edits expanded greatly on the each section of the article. The vocabulary is easy to read and the sources are reliable. This group did a great job with elaborating on different methods of chromopertubation available and extensively defining each method. Tang Thao (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group has achieved almost all of its goals for improvement of this article. They updated the description of chromopertubation, add more images, added much more information to the advantages and disadvantages section than originally published. Overall, the article is much more descriptive and informative now. TNgo22 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the group achieved its overall goals for improvement based on the information that was added to the article. They were able to add more pictures as well as different topic sections such as advantages and disadvantages. They also added more information to the diagnostic section and qualifications to be more descriptive. T.Truong.UCSF (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the group created an outline that would improve the article and, in fact, the group was able to meet all of it. The procedure description was simplified which allows the reader to understand regardless of their medical background. Also, this article contains many images that helps the reader further understand what the procedure consists of. The advantages and disadvantages sections offers a lot of information but it is delivered in a concise and neutral way.TMendoza11 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the group achieved its overall goals for improvement of this article. The descriptions of chromopertubation was greatly enhanced, better quality immages were added, the group also added the "advantage" and "disadvantage" sections as outlined. Signs and symptoms were also added to the "Diagnostic" section as outlined. Tang Thao (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2:

Does the draft sybmission reflect a neutral point of view?

Yes, all of the new edits to this article reflect a neutral point of view. The editors do not argue for one method of chromopertubation over another. All of the information are presented with a neutral perspective. The addition of the "advantage" and "disadvantage" sections show that the authors are neutral in presenting the benefits and risks of chromopertubation. The authors explained the information in a scientific, non-biased manner, as shown by a neutral vocabulary and reliable sources. Overall, the article is highly informative and presents a neutral point of view. Tang Thao (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

Yes, this article mostly aligns with Wikipedia's manual of style in the layout and formatting. Some of the medical jargon could be improved to lay language for non-scientific readers to better understand the meanings. An example of this could be the revise the language under the section "Methylene blue dye." I would also suggest linking "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)" and "serotonergic syndrome" to pre-existing Wikipedia articles so that readers may refer to those if needed. Overall, this article does a great job of following the manual of style. TNgo22 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes, the article included many references to sites that were verifiable secondary sources. The citations for this article were derived from a variety of other journal articles and published authors so it was well balanced and did not rely on just one perspective. The references were also easy to find and were easily accessible. T.Truong.UCSF (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity and inclusion?

Yes, the group explained the topic in a neutral matter. There was no bias context as seen by both presentation of advantages and disadvantages, proving that the language supported equity. Also, the edits reflect inclusion by describing different types of people undergoing the procedure. Not only did it include healthy women but also women who are categorized in the obese class and also women who may have had an abdominal surgery in the past such as C-section. Furthermore, the group offered alternatives for women that may not want to have the surgery.TMendoza11 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Check

As a group, we have reviewed the references and the sources are reliable and in correct format. There were three sets of duplicate references which have been consolidated.

Angela : #1-8 A.Castro.UCSF (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Amanda Y : #9-16 Ayee510 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Allison : #17-23 Ahsieh3 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Amanda D : #24-31 A. Duong-Le (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]