Talk:Precocious puberty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Huh? Pubic hair age for boys listed, but nothing about first overtly sexual interests in others, adult erections, first nocturnal emissions, or first conscious ejaculations?

...anyone else think that's strange? Also, I'd suspect that many adult readers such as myself, curious to see how unusual or common their age of puberty was, hardly remember such things as pubic hair. 68.183.124.21 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material

I removed this source. The reasons are obvious: it's not a good source, and I left the remainder of it though, but the reference was removed. --67.209.17.182 (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you on this; that third bullet-point line, which seems to be what you were aiming to remove, is supported by more than one source. And the sources are not bad, though a couple or all of them are not good either and need to be updated with better sources. However, the New Scientist source, which is one of the sources used for that line, passes this part of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guideline. Furthermore, the same sources are used for the text beneath that line, which also states that precocious puberty puts girls at risk for child sexual abuse. And those other two bullet point lines you removed can be easily sourced. I will add better sources for all of that information at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, but I am not doing it the second time. Reasons for the child sex abuse removal is the specifically the section I want out of. Because the previous two sections would be out of place, I also deleted them as well. The real reason is it is just fringe theory to puberty means they want sex. No, and that is exactly what the source and why it should be removed. --67.209.17.182 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And I reverted again. I've already explained why the material should stay. Again, you are not simply removing the sexual interest material, you are removing two other valid reasons that precocious puberty should be evaluated. And there is child sexual abuse information immediately below the sexual interest text anyway, supported by the same sources. I'm not fully sure what you are stating, since it is clear that there is some kind of English barrier between us, but there are various WP:Reliable sources, including various reliable medical sources, stating that precocious puberty puts girls at risk for child sexual abuse; that is not a WP:Fringe statement. And I do not have to gather those sources for you immediately. If you do some research, you will see that many such sources exist. See the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Simply reverting without trying to work this matter out on the talk page first is not wise; it is better to avoid WP:Edit warring, something either of us could get blocked for. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations II Group 3c Peer Review

1. Do the group's edits improve the article? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the grammatical edits have made the article more easier to read. Yes, the page is generally easy to read and lacks major grammatical errors.

These are the suggestions our group has for the group editors: 2. A great area of development to tackle could be the "Treatment" section. Are there any guidelines? The section currently seems a little disorganized and unclear, so I believe you guys could expand and enhance this area. Additionally, the "Research" section may be an interesting area to explore. It seems that there may be inconclusive studies out there, but it may add value to search if there are any newer studies out there that perhaps address the maternal environmental/lifestyle factors in addition to the genetic factors that could influence precocious puberty. Ellenberkley (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1. A: The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. The studies included are backed by a variety of evidence, and overall the article doesn't seem to persuade a certain stance on the issue. Ellenberkley (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
2. B: few citations should be removed. Citation 15 is linked to a news article that doesn't provide much health information. Citation 17 is isn't linked to the original article. The link sends you to the landing page of MSN.com. Much of the citations are primary literature found in research journal articles. Rxbpherrera (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
3. C: The edits are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style, but would suggest to expand upon the Treatment section since it briefly covers only pharmacological interventions. Jhpham (talk)
4. D: No concerns of plagiarism on groups previous edit.

Foundations II Group 3A Goals

Goals:

1) make sure all pages are grammatically correct and the syntax is properly written as to reduce reader confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inshaqari (talk • contribs)