Talk:Bloody show

Foundations II 2023 Group Bloody Show Proposed Edits
We propose to add more information regarding the definition of Bloody Show and the specifics of its development in pregnancy. In addition, we will add a further distinction between the Bloody show and mucus plugs and we plan to contrast Bloody Show to other types of vaginal bleeding. Our group plans to utilize systematic reviews and clinical studies that reference the words "Bloody Show" to support our edits.GraceHerron21 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Upon performing a literature search, few meta-analyses and systematic reviews address "bloody show". As such, we have turned to the use of a combination of textbooks, articles, and webpages to expand this article stub. Further expansion of this article may be performed in the future when more secondary and tertiary sources are published in regards to the bloody show. Katstudies (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Peer Reviews
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the article is comprehensive and gives a good overview of the condition complete with diagnosis, mechanism, treatment, and epidemiology. Multiple credible secondary sources were used to support the information and hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles are provided. Overall, as a Wikipedia user, I would be satisfied with the updated condition of this article.Emily.schwab (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this group provided details, context, and background that heavily improved the quality of the article per "guiding framework". I appreciated the structure of the article, how it was organized and provided concise headings that easily directed readers. The content was neutral and done in lay language, making it easy for readers to understand. Keanna Rasekhi (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this group improved the quality of the article per "guiding framework". The one thing I wanted to point out is that the mechanism may be something a layperson may not be able to understand. Despite that, it was simplified enough given the complexity of the matter. Otherwise, it has been written well. Sshapiro1 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group did a great job of adding information on this condition to the article in a neutral, informative way using credible sources. They also completed a section comparing and contrasting the bloody show with other types of vaginal bleeding, as planned. I appreciated the mix of sources including systematic reviews, professional guidelines, and textbooks.Emily.schwab (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC) They did a great job on adding information. They did add on stages of pregnancy into the article, which I thought added more detail to help readers understand the information they are reading. Sshapiro1 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after reading this article I learned much more about "Bloody show". I appreciated how the group utilized various terminology that is related to this concept and provided adequate background. The organization was easy to follow, providing a general flow for readers from the background, mechanism, and epidemiology, to complications associated with the disease and when to treat, giving the reader a comprehensive understanding. I appreciated how the article was natural in tone about a particular medical term that in the past may have had a negative connotation, and that the article addresses the lack of history on this term in the past. Additionally, the article uses wiki links to terms used throughout that readers may be unfamiliar with to help bridge the gap. It is important to note the "Mechanism" context contains terms that may be unfamiliar to those who do not have a strong background in science/medicine making it challenging for particular readers to understand. However, it provides appropriate details about the mechanism and is relevant to to include.Keanna Rasekhi (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain) Overall, the authors did a great job of keeping a neutral tone. In the treatment/management section, I would consider replacing the word "hardcore" with a clearer word choice. Also in this section, I would advise the authors to make sure that language used could not be construed as medical advice, for example "stitching the cervix closed will help prevent infection" could be edited to "stitching the cervix closed is sometimes used as a way to prevent infection". Emily.schwab (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain) yes, the links that are being used are verifiable sources and freely available. After clicking, the links do work and take readers to accessible websites. Although some of the sources may require a reader to have a subscription to have full access, the group also included credible sources, such as Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic, where the general public has unlimited access too. The group used sources that are non-predatory and reliable, all of which come from government websites, manuals, clinical guidelines, credible journals, and more. Importantly, a number of the sources used are international guidelines, such as in the UK, making this a well-sourced article. Keanna Rasekhi (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? (explain)

They formatted well for the most part. The only thing I wanted to point out is to either capitalize M in 'management' and/or change the title of the treatment/management section to 'Treatment and Management' Sshapiro1 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily.schwab (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes the group's edits do substantially improve the article. The original article does not have any reputable citations. There is only one citation that references the definition of a "bloody show." There are very few headers and there is definitely a lot of improvement needed for this article. The group did a very good job adding information to the introductory section of "Bloody show." The information is easily digestible despite using words such as "imminent." I don't believe the average reader would know what that means. Other than the utilization of "big words" the article is very thorough and uses hyperlinks to link other wikipedia pages for more information. AimeeRussell31 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, they mentioned that they wanted to add citations, and now they have over 30 references. I do not see any systemic reviews used but their citations come from reputable sources such as the Mayo clinic, McGraw-Hill education, StatPearls, and Cleveland Clinic. It appears that it was difficult to find more thorough reviews of "Bloody Show." AimeeRussell31 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)''' Yes, the edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity and inclusion. They used language such as "pregnant individuals" instead of "pregnant women." This was very inclusive. They also did not assume that all pregnant individuals believe in western medicine and mentioned using a midwife as a resource for labor symptoms. AimeeRussell31 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
What's up with this being labeled a disease stub and in the diseases category?

I think bloody show is also known as a mucus plug too. 65.92.206.187 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed down
I've trimmed this article down to just a stub based on the basics that can be supported by easily-found WP:RS. We will need more WP:MEDRS if we want to expand this. -- The Anome (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Keanna Rasekhi (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Reviewed references #1-17 --Valeriehtun (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Reference #15 was identified as predatory (BabySource) and was replaced with a citation to The Cleveland Clinic. — Preceding --Valeriehtun (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references #18-34 GraceHerron21 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No duplicate references were found. GraceHerron21 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Reference #33 was potentially predatory (BabySource) and was replaced by an article from University of Chicago Medicine.GraceHerron21 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)