Talk:Fetal scalp blood testing

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BKgunner2003, Maximixam, Kkeu, Timothy Kein (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group [A] proposed edits

The current article is not in lay language and doesn't define the medical jargon used. The purpose of fetal scalp blood testing could be expanded upon. Answering simple questions like why, when, etc. The procedure itself could be further explained with a diagram. Further explanation of the current table and explanation of values in lay language needed. Maximixam (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Edit: Add more background information about fetal scalp blood testing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Kein (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

References

a) Our group has reviewed all the references and they are correctly formatted! Timothy Kein (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Timothy Kein b) I did not identify any predatory sources Timothy Kein (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Timothy Kein

Peer Review

Peer Review done by group Heroic Measure

1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group's edits do substantially improve the article. The Wikipedia page for this topic has a lot more information now about the procedure and why it is used as well as background information about the history of its use and where the technique originates from. However, we do feel that the article does use some more technical language and could benefit from the inclusion of more wiki links to define and describe what some of the medical language means. For example, please include wiki links for language like "acidemia" and "amnioscope." We believe that these edits could improve the readability of this article for the general public which is Wikipedia's audience. Keyapatel11 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Keya! Thank you for comment! We can definitely work to incorporate more wiki links in our article! Timothy Kein (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the group's edits have substantially improved the article by providing a much clearer definition of the Wikipedia topic than was available previously, and they have gone far more in-depth into the topic expounding on it than what was previously done. I do think it is possible for the group to add more images or diagrams to the page to give visual examples of the procedure. MagdielRivera (talk)

Hi MagdielRivera. We appreciate your critiques. We have had a difficult time finding images that don't overstep Wikipedia's guidelines, but will keep our eyes peeled. Thanks. Maximixam (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?   MagdielRivera (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. We believe that Wikipedia users accessing this page will now be able to derive a greater understanding of what "Fetal scalp blood testing" is. Keyapatel11 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the group has achieved the goals they had to improve the articles they initially set out as outlined in their proposed edits. MagdielRivera (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain) Keyapatel11 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, overall, the draft submission maintains a neutral point of view. However, I think some of the language used in the article needs to be adjusted to maintain a more neutral point of view. For example, the article uses both "fetus/fetal" and "baby" seemingly interchangeably. However, out of medical accuracy and neutrality, I believe it would be more appropriate to only use the word fetus when referring to the unborn baby. In this article, keeping the language consistent is key in keeping neutrality and I do not think the term "baby" should be used for this reason. Keyapatel11 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Keyapatel11. You brought up good point about consistency in word choice. As you mentioned, It is very important to be consistent when using words that can disrupt the neutral point of view of the article. We will consider your recommendation. Thanks! BKgunner2003 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

I think the edits mostly use language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. However, there are a few instances where the article specifically notes “pregnant women”. I believe this could be changed to more gender-neutral language to account for those who are able to get pregnant but do not identify as cis-gender female. MagdielRivera (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Mag. I totally agree with you about specific words we use. We will totally have consideration on gender-neutral language. Kkeu (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Yes, the sources that they used are easily accessible since most of them are journals. The articles they used are open access meaning they are available to the general public. Most of the journal sources they used have an impact score of 10 or greater meaning that it is very reputable in the scientific community.Detrue (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This makes our group feel more confident about the sources we chose. Timothy Kein (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)