Talk:Asynclitic birth

I
I have deleted incorrect statements and references that are not of scientific origin, to preserve NPOV. The final reference is definitely from the outer limits, but I have let it stand. JustAnMD 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Wnsop8 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group Asynclitic birth proposed edits
Solidify the introduction. Create diagnosis section, procedures/correction section. Michaelo415 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * May also add causes, complications Noellevo (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

reformat subheads (1 = dx, 2 = causes, 3 = complications, 4 = ? possibly tx)? Noellevo (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Reference edits: all references have been reviewed and properly formatted Noellevo (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Attributions: @Noellevo #1-8, @Michaelo415 #9-17, @Mppharmd #18-25, @Svsandhu #26-33 Noellevo (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 6, 15, 32 were duplicates. Consolidated to reference 6 Noellevo (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 10, 15 were duplicates and removed. --Michaelo415 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC), 28 was consolidated with 14 as they were duplicates --mppharmd

Peer Review
Reviewing article: Asynclitic birth

It was great improvement on the article.

Lead: The lead has been updated to reflect the new content that our peer added. The language was very scientific medical terms; it would be helpful to have more lay terms. The lead does include a description of the article's major sections. The lead was concise and was not overly detailed.

Content: The content added was all relevant to the article. It was organized and explained in a very clear way for the reader. It was precise and detailed in the information given. The content is added up to date and consists of a lot more new information. I could not think of information that could be added; it answered all my questions as a reader. Our only suggestion would be to simplify some medical terms so people without knowledge of these medical terms can better understand them.

Tone and Balance: The tone was neutral. There were no claims that seemed biased toward a particular position. It was very well written, where it was just stating facts and no language that indicates viewpoints. The content does not try to persuade the reader. Instead, it provides information for the reader to learn.

Organization: Very well organized. The headers and how the material is separated make sense. We would suggest to please separate them into smaller paragraphs because it becomes difficult to read when they are so large.

Images and Media: It would be great if a picture could be added! (if possible)

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? Edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. They avoided using words that could point to a certain group. Instead, they used neutral and inclusive language. Jaquimarquezg (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! We'll fix the medical jargon. Noellevo (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The group edits substantially improved the article as described in Wikipedia's peer review guiding framework. The group achieved its goals for improvement: solidified the introduction and added more section such as diagnosis, causes, complication, and treatment. The edits are uniform and consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The tone of the article was neutral and easy to follow along, however, at times lay terms were not used. When lay terms were not used, a definition was sometimes provided. In diagnosis, occiput was not defined until later on. Defining occiput when it is first introduced can improve the reader's understanding. In addition, when scientific language was used that was not defined, relevant hyperlinks were used to allow the reader to further explore the information. -Samantha.Maina (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? The article reflects a neutral point of view and did not seem persuasive. This group seemed to use credible references to make a detailed but concise summary of the topic. However, there are some sentences that are missing citations. Overall, the article was not biased and well written. Wnsop8 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes, the points that are included are verifiable with cited secondary sources and are freely available. I verified this by going to the sources and it worked perfectly. Narjes.nadimzadeh (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Overall: The content added improved greatly! They were able to accomplish all of their goals. Their strength is that it was a very well-written, detailed, and organized article. An improvement would be to include more lay language. Great job!