Talk:Menstrual disorder

	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.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's Health High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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 Menstrual disorder.

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): Ernielum, J La, UCSF PharmD Candidate, SLin101, C.Nowak, PharmD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what

what happens after the fifth day......

Foundations II Peer Review 2020 by Group 16

Part 1:

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

Yes. Looking at the group's contributions to the wiki page, it appears in lay language that is easy for one to read and understand. The causes and treatments are elaborated well and are descriptive. The sections are easy to follow and are predictable. It is balanced and clear and what the group is trying to communicate with the reader. One possible addition that the group could add would be to add some sort of graphic or picture to help illustrate to the reader what the condition/disease state is (non-gore) or some type of infographic/chart. Possibly how frequent these symptoms are in relation to each other (i.e is it very rare? or common?).

--KTruong1337 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the group's edits greatly improved the article as the updated content was relevant, up-to-date, and neutral. The newly added sections were broken down in an organized manner and easy to read. All the information was backed up by a reliable and high quality secondary source of information. The article could be improved by the addition of images or media that would help enhance the understanding of the topic by the reader.

--Onom12 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by adding the proposed ideas to the article, I believe that group 15 did a good job in improving the article. All the information was up-to-date and in a neutral tone. The structure of the article was well-organized and easy to follow. Important key words were linked to wikilinks or cited. The article can be improved by either changing the name of the section “see others” to “external link” or specify what these links define.

--M.song, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes. The group has improved this page extensively as the page before the edits was very short and non-descriptive. They did a great job in elaborating the subject and adding to the page. It was easy to follow and the lead sections were clear. It is also organized well (e.g Causes/Treatments. Great job!

--KTruong1337 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The group has definitely improved the overall quality of the article and achieved their overall goals for improvement. They were able to create new sections that helped organize the article better. They also elaborated more on the overview of the disorder and added many high quality secondary sources to the article.

--Onom12 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the group has achieved improvements in its overall goals as the group has added more than 20+ new reliable references to the article. They have made changes to the clarity and overall flow and have met the Wikipedia style guide.

--M.song, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2:

1.) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

Yes, the draft submission by Group 15 reflects a neutral point of view. The group's sources seemed to portray factual information versus opinions of each related topic. The material discussed as well at the tone of the article was neutral. I did not get a sense of any biased information from the material discussed in the article. Overall, I think Group 15 did a solid job of touching upon all related menstrual disorders with material that was to the point, neutral, and easy to understand.

--Sstrome (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2.) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

Yes, the article provides high quality secondary sources along with mostly freely available sources. However, citation 2 is not a freely available text (PMID:22846527). However, the information that was being cited by this source seems to be extracted from the abstract, which is public and freely available on the page. I would still recommend finding a different citation that is freely available as this will create stronger evidence for the information and help readers verify the information more easily. Lastly, I recommend citing PubMed articles that display the whole text onto the main page rather than those that require seeking out a secondary link to access the full text. This will help readers who may not be as familiar in navigating the PubMed website. Overall, this page did a great job in citing quality sources that are also easy to access! Great work!

--Onom12 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Yes, the edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The lead section provides a concise introductory explanation of menstrual disease. The title, heading, section, bulleted list of the article are well-organized . The group did a good job writing out the full version of the abbreviation. Overall, I think group 15 did a good job following the Wikipedia’s manual of style format.

--M.song, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4.) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

Writing lay language in a scientific article or health related article may be difficult as there are some things that cannot be explained in a different way. There are some phrases that the group could maybe write in their own language a little further such as the introduction:

ex) "Menstural disorders can be both physically and psychologically debilitating...." etc. It sounds very similar to the source that was cited's introduction paragraph. The rest of that paragraph is also very similar. Maybe something to work on!

Following that, there are some other phrases and sentences that seem to be nearly identical to the sources cited. Since there were no photographs added, there are no copy right violations.

--KTruong1337 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II Group 15 Ideas

WikiProject Medicine: start-class quality, mid-importance. WikiProject Women's Health: start-class quality, high-importance. Does not cite any published literature, only definitions. Aim to add references that expand on the topic of menstrual disorders Serves as a page to direct readers to more specific types of menstrual disorders. Could expand on overview of menstrual disorders and rework page structure to do so. (2K+ views within past 30 days, decent traffic to give a general overview and redirection to more specifics)

What are menstrual disorders? Types of menstrual disorders -Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) -Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) -Amenorrhea (No Menstrual Bleeding) -Dysmenorrhea (Painful Menstruation ) -Menorrhagia (Heavy Menstrual Bleeding) Signs and symptoms Causes Diagnosis Management and Treatment — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLin101 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pop up saying article needs additional citations

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Menstrual disorder" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Removed this after adding substantial citations for all parts of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLin101 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]