Talk:Operative vaginal delivery

Medicine 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.

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): PharmD Student Kathryn, Kaymowery, HungryP2, MarySimisola (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Brittneynguyen11, Jennifernguyen0314, Lynn.nguyen2, 23W1k1UCSF.

— Assignment last updated by 23W1k1UCSF (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 2023 UCSF PharmD students

Plan:

What is it/ technique/ devices/ prevalence/ epidemiology

Indications (type of patients)/ contraindications

Recovery Time

Complications

Cost

History

~~~~ PharmD Student Kathryn (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I believe this group did a good job at substantially improving this article. They had added multiple sources that are from trustworthy locations, and done a great job going in-depth on the sub-sections of Operative Vaginal Delivery. They have added many sub-headings that are well-organized and help the reader easily understand the material. I think that the group has achieved their overall goal for improvement. I believe that this draft does maintain a neutral point of view. All information cites a source from where it originates from. The group remembers to state both the pros and cons of operative vaginal delivery, and this helps prevent the reader from leaning one way of thinking negatively about the topic vs another way of thinking positively about the topic. A great example of this is through the fact that the group lists both the indications of the procedure and the complications that can occur. The indications demonstrate how necessary the procedure can be in certain situations, while the complications show how operative vaginal delivery can be potentially harmful. Lynn.nguyen2 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! -Kaymowery (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, it was helpful. MarySimisola (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section serves as a space for UCSF Foundations II students assigned to this article to provide feedback and peer review. 23W1k1UCSF (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If compared to the unedited original article, the revised article greatly expanded on the topic. The group's edits did provide substantial improvement based on Wikipedia's guiding framework. I assume this topic falls under the Surgeries and Procedures Manual of Style and, therefore, confirm that the group followed the guidelines and supported these sections. The only relevant section that was not included was Society and Culture and/or Special Populations. However, I believe the group addressed these topics briefly throughout the article so a separate section may not be necessary. One suggestion for improvement would be to make more use of Wikilinks for complex subjects (i.e. venous thromboembolism) and to minimize medical jargon. I recommend the group read over the article while making these edits to make it a cohesive change.

23W1k1UCSF (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! We will look over it to incorporate more Wikilinks and see what jargon we can remove. -Kaymowery (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! You are right that the society and culture and/or special populations does not have a section of its own, but it was briefly talked about in various sections of the article. MarySimisola (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this group did a great job adding to their article. Their content is very organized and I really liked how they had both headings and subheadings (i.e., PTSD and pelvic floor injury under complications). All new information and content that the group included in their article was supported by new references, which contained articles published in academic journals and information from the WHO, guidelines from the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as books on on obstetric surgery. The information in the article was also really comprehensive (they included history, the process, recovery ,etc.) and I think the group did a good job expanding this article. One suggestion that I would make is to make the wording more user-friendly. There are a lot of complex medical words that a typical user might not be able to interpret, so trying to link more topics to other articles would be a good idea. I would also recommend moving "History" to the top of the article so that the timeline makes more sense. Overall, this group definitely was able to substantially improve this article with added, sound content. Jennifernguyen0314 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi, thanks for the feedback! We will work on revising language to make it more easy to understand. I believe we kept history at the bottom since we thought it held less importance than the other subjects but I will talk to my group to see if we want to adjust that for chronology sake. -Kaymowery (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that history will probably be less important in terms of what people are looking for if they come across this page.

PharmD Student Kathryn (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the history, it was more focused on the invention of the instruments used which we taught shouldn't be at the top because we wanted to focus on covering what seems to be the main focus of the article itself. MarySimisola (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group's edits added a lot of depth and substantial improvement to the article through the use of various subheadings. I appreciated how the article held a neutral stance and didn't cater towards a specific population. In regard to the history section, I was wondering if there were alternative techniques or tools that were previously used for operative vaginal delivery? I think it would also be helpful to include a couple images of the forceps/vacuum suction to gauge a general sense of what the tools look like! Overall, I believe that the article is very specific, concise, and well-written! In the epidemiology/prevalence section, I liked how the group included specific statistics about women from the UK and first time mothers; however, I think it would be quite interesting to learn about the impact of certain race/ethnic groups on operative vaginal delivery to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion.Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions! Including the history of other instruments used in vaginal delivery is super interesting! I will check that out. Definitely agree that adding images here would be beneficial. We can look at other specific populations to report stats. -Kaymowery (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I agree to adding some visuals and images. MarySimisola (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Our group did not identify any references from predatory sources or duplicate references.

HungryP2 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also went through the sources and confirmed that they are not predatory publishers, duplicate references, or references in need of reformatting.

PharmD Student Kathryn (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All references are not from predatory sources or have duplicate references. It was all checked by the group.MarySimisola (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]