Talk:Obesity and fertility

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): D Dickinson SF, Pilaoucsf, MAUCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 14 Proposed Edits

Move epidemiology section to the top of the Wiki page, and expand epidemiology to include men, obesity statistics (particularly among women who are child-bearing age), and risk factors. (PI)

Make "Women" heading less technical. (DD)

Create a "Genetic Causes & Hormonal Disorders Section" that expands on the sentence in the introduction. (MA/KJ)

Find non-primary sources to replace primary sources.

MAUCSF (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Add more details to "Men"

Add more details to PCOS (statistics, pathophysiology, etc)

Add more details to management

K. Jung, UCSF Pharm.D. Candidate 2022 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Group 13 Peer Review

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

The group's edits did improve the article as they added in more information regarding factors that may increase risk of obesity, expanded the women's section, and added a stigma section.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

It seems the group has partially achieved its overall goals. The heading for the women's section is cohesive, but there is still technical language that could be further defined and simplified. We did not see a "Genetic Causes & Hormonal Disorders" section.

S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Vincent.Vu2 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Ntran49 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Ayangucsf (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

This article reflects a neutral point view. Most paragraphs do not lean towards any specific opinions. All the statements are factual and unbiased. I suggest to expand more information on the Men section. Vincent.Vu2 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Based on the sources provided from the article, most of the sources are easily accessed. However, some sources ( for example, article from New York times - citation #19, citation # 18) are not open sources. We were not able to access it without either permission or having an account. Otherwise, the other sources look accurate and available. Ntran49 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…
   1. Article title has scientific name - the subheadings are all scientific terms (for example:Polycystic ovarian syndrome)
   2. Lay language was used appropriately when possible, but scientific terms could be defined more or hyperlinked to other articles.
   3. The article addressed common sections but could be organized more similarly to "Wikipedia's Medicine Related Articles - Manual of Style"
   4. Overall, most sources are from reliable Endocrinology or Reproduction journals but could incorporate more secondary sources.
   5. Article does a good job avoiding trivia sections, it was pretty pertinent to the topic at hand. There were no "external link farms" aka excessive linking to other non-relevant articles.

Ayangucsf (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

There was no significant plagiarism or copyright violation. After copy and pasting sections of the article into Google search, we found that none of the sections were plagiarized. The group effectively used sources without copying text word-for-word and paraphrased well. However, the Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome section could be reviewed since the text is written with a similar style to the cited source (this section was added before the start of this project). S. Xue, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes

The article lead doesn't really serve as a summary of the important aspects of the body text. It should begin by defining the subject and spend less time on obesity itself. The first four sources are only used by the lead, suggesting it has been written independently rather than summarising the body text.

I think the Epidemiology is focused on the wrong thing. It is documenting the epidemiology of obesity, when we already have an obesity article and even an Epidemiology of obesity article. While a sentence or so on the epidemiology of obesity may be warranted here, the main focus should be on its effect on fertility. How many or what proportion of people are infertile or less fertile due to obesity?

The article is rather too technical for a subject that should be accessible to a general audience. It is also a little too verbose, with too much description of each condition that is really better handled by the reader following the wikilink to read that article. It would benefit from staying more focused on the infertility aspects and only briefly define the obesity-related medical conditions that affect it. -- Colin°^Talk 17:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)