![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Our group did not identify any references from predatory sources or duplicate references.
HungryP2 (
talk)
22:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Our group did not identify any references from predatory sources or duplicate references.
HungryP2 (
talk)
22:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
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)