Talk:Delayed milestone

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Zunaira.I.PharmD (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group [Delayed Milestones] proposed edits

 * 1.Diagnosing Delayed Milestone Christinechon (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Things to consider: Age range (conception to 5 years of age. Alicevdang (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2. Possible Causes/Epidemiology. AlejandroChavezUCSF (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3. Clinical approach/ Management Options/ InterventionsAlicevdang (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review
Met goals on diagnosing delayed milestones. Mentions age range, and briefly talks about possible causes (can expand a little more). Can mention more about intervention and management options. Sharoonie22 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * nevermind, all goals were met, very detailed and organized! Sharoonie22 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Article reflects langauge supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. For example, used "people/children with..." instead of discriminating by disability. Language written was very inclusive and reflects diversity. Also mentions guidelines from different countries to address readers from many places. Sharoonie22 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'''Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain)''' yes, each point made is backed up with a reference that is from a credible source whether that is a research study, published paper, or information from an organization that provides information on the topic. I have reviewed all references to confirm this. No points made are left without a reference following it. Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The content added is relevant to the topic and all of the information is up to date. There is no content that does not belong, and everything fits together well. The content is meant to inform rather than sway toward a specific position, so it remains neutral. Additionally, the article is organized and has a good tone; the editors did a good job of making sure their points flowed well together. Images could be added to engage the audience. There are many sources included to back up claims, and these are all credible and of a variety.Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the article has improved much and is informative for the public.Shiva.jafaripour (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

All of the main goals met. Wikipedia's manual of style requirement met. Great and clear structure. Zunaira.I.PharmD (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 1: Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the wikipedia peer review "Guiding Framework"? The group's edits substantially improve the article. Everything presented in the article is relevant to the topic and helps readers understand what a delayed milestone is. The article addresses what delayed milestones are, its causes, how to diagnose it, and the clinical approached to help improve it. The reader is not distracted as the article covers only content that is relevant to the topic. Each section of the article is evenly valued and it shows the importance of each topic in relation to the content. This was a well balanced article. There are some citation issues in the references section. References 7 and 11 show text in red indicating missing information. References 13, 15, and 34 take you to a website that does not show the full text, citing the article so that it sends you to the free full text is important for the readers. I am not too sure about the use of reference 21 "About ASQ" in this article and would suggest taking a second look. A few of the citations take you to the abstract page and not the full article, I suggest citing the article so that it takes you directly to the full text instead. It makes it easier for the reader to identify the source where the information was gathered. Overall, all the links work, but do need some editing. The information is up to date with newer articles used as references. Most of the facts are supported by an appropriate reliable reference, however there is on line under the assessment section talking about neuroimaging that is not referenced. The last line of the paragraph, "There currently are no specified guidelines or recommendations indicating the computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is required to evaluate a child with any missed milestones in child development" is missing a citation. Other than that, everything else is backed up with references. Overall, great improvements were made to the article. Jerriljacob (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group achieved its overall goals for improvement. Group has achieved their goals of incorporating diagnosis of delayed milestones in the article. They touched on the benefits of catching signs and symptoms of delayed milestones. They also addressed assessment of delayed milestones which includes developmental surveillance, the use of screening tools (ages and stages questionnaire, child development review-parent questionnaire, parents' evaluation of development status), genetics, physical examination, and neuroimaging. They also included the current guidelines with descriptions of the U.S Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Group achieved their goals of incorporating causes/epidemiology into the article. The reader is able to identify that the prevalence of delayed milestones is higher in low to middle income countries and that the causes can be due to medications, trauma, and micronutrient deficiency. Under causes it may be easier to have a sub-header labeled medications and then put both anti-epileptic medications and antidepressants under it. Group achieved their goals of incorporating clinical approach/management options/interventions in the article. They introduced biotinidase deficiency and its effects, including developmental delay, and the treatment which is biotin supplementation. HIV relationship to delayed milestones, inherited metabolism disorder and the treatment options to help improve development, language and speech and its treatment, premature birth being a risk factor for delayed milestones and how physiotherapy can be beneficial, and lastly, recurrent depletion and its treatment. The group did an excellent job of achieving their goals for improvement. Jerriljacob (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 2: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes, the article is written from a neutral standpoint, presenting findings without taking any sides. It does not attempt to persuade the reader, rather presents claims backed by cited sources. Claims made in this article are not heavily biased towards any position. This is a well written article from a neutral point of view. Jerriljacob (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)