Talk:Hysterotomy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hysterotomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120721214244/http://jtcs.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/115/5/1021 to http://jtcs.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/115/5/1021

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joanneguan, Ajackob, Gipsharon08, Mjocampo2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: J.su ucsf, Mirna.kal, Sskwok1.

— Assignment last updated by J.su ucsf (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 10 proposed edits

Our goals for this article include:

• Adding images to the article
• New section: Medical uses
• New section: Risks/complications
• New section: Technique
• New section: Recovery
• Enhance description of hysterotomy

Joanneguan (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review by Group 13

• Question 1: Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding Framework"?

Overall, I think the group did a good job of adding separate sections and organized the article well. I like the visual aids as well because it's helpful for the topic. One thing that I noticed that needs some improvement is the sentence structure in the article. A few of the paragraphs have to be checked for correct sentence structure, like the Lead paragraph and the Caesarean Section, etc. The group should also pay attention to grammar and spelling errors because I noticed a few ones that need editing. The majority of the content looks like was taken from academic journals and related to the topic. A few of the dates on the citations need to be edited to the correct format. Overall, I think the group has made great progress and is on the road to having a complete article.Mirna.kal (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Based on the goals they have on the talk page, I think they have accomplished them all based on what they have in the article because it looks like they added all the sections they were planning on adding.Mirna.kal (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question 3D: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

I think the language in the article is neutral and doesn't pose any threats to diversity, equity, and inclusion. I didn't notice any language that might sound sexist or racist in the article.Mirna.kal (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question 1: Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding Framework"?

Overall, the group's edit improved the article described in the "Guiding Framework". The lead clearly explains the article's topic and foreshadows upcoming subtopics. It provides a detailed description of the type of incisions that can be made. As for content, everything added seems appropriate/relevant and addresses the topic. Most of the sources are up to date except for one journal that was from 1991. The tone of the article is neutral and does not bias in one way or another. Overall, the article is also well organized with headers and subheaders that allow readers to quickly scroll through for information needed and the pictures added do help orient readers to the type of incisions that are made. The content added was relevant and provides a more thorough explanation of the topic. Some possible improvements that can be made are to explain some of the terms/content better. For example under hysterotomy abortion medical uses, what are "dilation and curettage..."? Are they standard procedures? Sskwok1 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group did achieve its overall goals for improvement. They were able to add information to the sections they proposed, add further information to the description and provide images to help readers better understand the types of incisions. Sskwok1 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question 3C: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

The edits are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. It has a lead section providing a brief overview and then further content sections describing different subtopics of the subject. Then it has a reference section containing all the sources that were used. They are all formatted properly. Within the article, there are a few spelling errors ("In addition" from the last paragraph of the lead). Also, the second sentence of the lead can be reworded a little better to make it easier to understand. Sskwok1 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes. The updated Lead provides a clear and concise overview of the content found in the article. All content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The sources all look reliable but there are some references that could be more recent (e.g. reference 20 was published in 1991). The rest of the article is well-organized with well-defined sections. Images are relevant and contribute to the reader's understanding of the article’s content.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Yes, the group was able to achieve their goals, i.e. adding new content sections and images. New content was backed by relevant and current sources.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain] The article is written from a neutral point of view. For topics that are controversial, both sides are presented. One recommendation I have is editing the last two sentences under the Closure section to omit “one would say”. Instead, it can be presented as: “Double layer sutures can promote [...] while single layer sutures allow for [...]”.

B. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain] Claims are supported by reliable sources, mainly journal articles. There are a good number of sources from different journals and publishing authors. Each section includes a reference from which information was obtained.

J.su ucsf (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference contributions Joanne-1-6

Mona- 7-12

Arbelena- 13-18

Sharon- 19-25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackob (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No predatory references found.

Reference 3 and 5 were duplicates; removed reference 5 and kept reference 3 Mjocampo2 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Mona Jane Ocampo