Talk:Cervical mucus plug

Re: "Normally during human pregnancy, the mucus is cloudy, clear, thick, and sticky." How can something be both cloudy and clear? Aren't they opposites? 70.27.29.51 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In other languages ...
This article is equivalent to the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristellscher_Schleimpfropf, which is not linked. 129.69.215.56 (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Article Plan

Add more references

Add images to this article Finanyohannes (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Use more inclusive wording--CarUCSF2025 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Organize into sub topics: Plug during pregnancy, during labor, and after pregnancy.

Find studies on those with cerival plug --Kamilawrobel (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)21:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Proposed Edits
Add more references.

Add images to this article.

Use more inclusive wording.

Organize into sub topics: Plug during pregnancy, during labor, and after pregnancy.

Find studies on those with cervical plug. CarUCSF2025 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group has added more sources and information. We have added reliable systematic reviews as well as well-cited sources that are peer-reviewed. We have added relevant headings to the article that help explain more about the CMP in different stages and its different components/functions. We even added a complications section to explain further on its importance.

Yes, the editors added more background to what the mucus plug is and its purpose. It also added more references which allowed it to discuss the different phases of the mucus plug and how different conditions can lead to complications associated with the mucus plug. The editors started with a stub article but has added sections and information to expand the topic into a full article with many references.

Ilu25 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This was originally a stub article prior to the group's editing. I believe they added more content to improve the article. They added images and organized the articles with sub topics.Cleung1021 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the editors added information which expands on what a cervical mucus plug is, the components and functions of it, potential changes which may occur, and complications. This article is informational and organized in a way which is easy for a reader to understand. Aleong13 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article was originally considered to be a stub, and the group revised the article to make it a very thorough and specific overview to the topic of cervical mucus plug. The editors added many references to support their information. The article is now very comprehensive and organized. Ireneliu2025 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? ''' Yes, we have added great information into our sections. We added more information on the CMP itself and its various functions and components. We were able to differentiate it during pregnancy and menstrual cycle which was one of the harder sections.

Yes, they were able to add more references and information on the topic. They also did include images throughout the article as they had wanted. They were also able to break the article down into clear subsections even if it wasn't the original organization that they had planned.

Ilu25 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the editors added more references, images, utilized inclusive wording, and organized neutral information into subtopics. The subtopics help break up information into digestible, easy to follow sections and references helped back up additional information added to the article. Aleong13 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the group has achieved its goals from what they listed in the talk page for their improvements. They found reliable sources to expand on the function and stages of a cervical mucus plug, added more images, and broke down the information into sub topics.Cleung1021 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the group achieved its overall goal by organizing the article into small sections and adding relevant images. The group also found many references to support the information they added to the article. The artcle is now very comprehensive and informational. Ireneliu2025 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]''' Yes, the article does not take a certain stance or opinion on the CMP and its functions. It is neutral and brings together information on the CMP that is valuable to the readers.

Kamilawrobel (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)--Kamilawrobel (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. This draft submission gives an overview of what a cervical mucus plug is, the components and function of it, antimicrobial properties, changes which may occur during menstrual cycles and pregnancy, and potential complications. All of this information is consolidated in a neutral, informational manner. Aleong13 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article of Cervical Mucus Plug reflects a neutral point of view by using appropriate language and tone. The group did a great job in describing the product by providing very detailed information such as its components and functions. The group did not include personal thoughts or using subjective/persuasive language in the article. Ireneliu2025 (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? (explain)''' Yes, this article falls under anatomy, and they do break it down into subsections that discuss function, variation, significance as well as added images to go along with those subsections. Throughout the article, the editors were good about defining abbreviations and citing properly. There is one citation in the lead section that shows up as need citation that should be fixed, but otherwise the formatting is consistent with the manual of style. Ilu25 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The sentence has been deleted, thanks! Kamilawrobel (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain)''' Yes, the editors used secondary sources to support their information added. For example, the group used reviews and journal articles that focus on other primary research as their references. The links of the sources are also available in the reference section. Ireneliu2025 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)'''

The article acknowledges the significance of healthy pregnancies and reproductive health, demonstrating respect for the diverse experiences of individuals during pregnancy. The group also uses neutral and inclusive terminology when referring to pregnant individuals. Overall, the language appears to be informative, inclusive, and respectful of diverse experiences.Cleung1021 (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference Review
All references are correctly formatted.

reviewed references 1-5--CarUCSF2025 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed references 6-10. One was replaced with an existing reference. --Kamilawrobel (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Predatory publishers: Citation #1 and #2 were identified as predatory and replaced with appropriate articles from PubMed.--CarUCSF2025 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed references 11-13. references were obtained from NIH. There were no duplicates, and no predatory journals found. Finanyohannes (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Duplicates found: None CarUCSF2025 (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)