Talk:Uterine Tachysystole

comment
comment 2

192.175.17.28 (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REVIEW OF YOUR ARTICLE #3

As I read through your article, I felt that it was very well put together. You were able to find quite a few resources, and I felt that you organized them well. However, there were a few issues/changes that I would make.

You also have a tendency to cite your source in parentheses. Since, this is not a research paper, it's not required to do so. But, if you are using this to keep track of your sources so that you can use the "cite function" later, then go ahead. Just remember to remove them at the end.

Try to present it, as visually pleasing as you can. Try to break up the paragraphs a bit more. They looked a little chunky to me.

For the Research Directions, mention if there are any present organizations studying your disease. From what I can gather, you mentioned further research measures in order to study your disease. But, is there a organization/ group heading this or is this more of a "individualized" group effort?

Just keep these ideas in mind as you write your final draft. Rk160 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

I read through and I think your research is through and your rough draft is definitely coming together

Things to work on:

-You don't need to put the source behind the reference number, the reference number takes us straight to the source

-Your headings are a little confusing format wise each section should be a Header that then contains a sub header

-In your epidemiology section you include the p value I feel like this needs to be explained or linked DaBearsBillSwerski (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input! I ended up deciding not to add sub headers as I didn't see any sections where a sub header would organize it any better. I did however move certain information from different sections, so hopefully it is now a clearer read. Lillexa0316 (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review 3

I think you have put together a great draft thus far. The topic is interesting and I enjoyed reading it. A few suggestions that I would like to make include: 1. Are there any other symptoms that you can add? I have not done research on the topic, however, are there more signs that a woman may have that can lead to her having other symptoms? If not, then the section is fine. If there are other things that you can add that would be nice! 2. Also, be mindful of your citations. You do not need to double cite. 3. Lastly, if there are any articles out that have information on current research, then that would be great to include in the research part.

One thing I did like was how you sectioned you "diagnosis" portion out. It was really clean and I liked the way it flowed! Scproby (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking time to provide me with input! Unfortunately, symptoms of UT aren't very obvious to where I could add much more information. Lillexa0316 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Weiner

Remove the heading from the beginning. The disease name will populate itself on the final site. The abstract does not have a heading.
Whenever you do need to use a medical term, reference any specific condition, body part, or treatment, link to the wikipedia article for it the first time you use it! In general, more links are better.
Needs more thorough citations in some sections (some sections are very well cited). Nearly everything you say needs a citation. If you take a few sentences from one source, it's ok to cite once at the end of that chunk.
"The terms "hypertonus" and "hyperstimulation" are not recommended to be used." Then why are you including them here?
If you have cited something using wikipedia's citation manager, you don't need a parenthetical citation. If you have not, you should use that instead of a parenthetical citation.
I bet you could find an image on wikimedia that relates to uterine contractions that would be a nice addition here.
Your cause section here is really discussing pathophysiology: how does this cause the signs and symptoms. Cause should be about what causes the condition.
In general, it's better to link to wikipedia pages and cite outside sources rather than linking directly. Even if there isn't an exact page, if there's something pretty close, link to that, and then cite the relevant source.
Pathophysiology is well-written and covers important material.
There is recent research on this topic. Make sure you cover that in the research section.
Well-laid out with lots of good information! This is a really good first draft.
There is a lot of jargon in here. Some of it is necessary: for that make sure you link and/or explain it. Some of it could probably be replaced with simpler terms.

Sweiner02 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review 4

This was a great rough draft! I really liked how you compared uterine tachysystole contractions to normal labor contractions; I think this really made your content clear and easier to comprehend when considering how normal contractions should present.

I would suggest either explaining in more detail or linking terms that other readers may not understand the context of (terms like augmented labor, spontaneous labor, hemorrhage). By linking or explaining these terms, I think readers who may not have an understanding of medical terminology will be better capable of comprehending the rest of your article. Whenever I can't fully understand an article, it kind of makes me feel unmotivated in truly understanding what is being said so I think that other readers would appreciate the opportunity to have these more difficult terms explained!

I think it would be useful to separate the treatment/management portion of your article from the diagnosis section and create a separate heading for this altogether. I think separating the treatment/management from the diagnosis would make your article more organized.

I would suggest removing the sentence "The terms "hypertonus" and "hyperstimulation" are not recommended to be used." This sentence kind of confused me at the end of your great abstract. If this sentence does not have any significance, then I would just consider removing it.

Ostelter (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]