Talk:Multipurpose prevention technology

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
Peer reviewers: Katstudies, Valeriehtun, GraceHerron21, Jh.ucsf

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2023 Group A Purposed Edits
Expand the types section to give a more detailed explanation on each type of MPT and what each type can prevent. Expand more on the introduction section and history with more up to date information. It seems like the last event discussed was in 2011, so check if any other updates occurred since then.

Ilu25 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We can also add images. Ireneliu2025 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2023 Peer Review
Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer view "Guiding framework"?

Yes, the MPT article was originally a limited stub prior to the work and edits created by the group. The group has provided a clearer definition of MPT with examples of what these may be used to protect against. In addition the group has provided a distinction between MPT which are available and those still under clinical development, providing a short description of each one. They continued to expand the article to provide relevant sections such as prevalence (of need for MPT), expanded the history, advantages, and opportunities for improvement.Katstudies (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Multipurpose Technology article includes a wide variety of useful information, including neutral definitions and examples of MPT’s. The group members included an array of products in clinical development as well as products that are available right now. I do believe that this group’s edits drastically improve the article because it is able to accurately convey details in an informative way. --Valeriehtun (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article was originally considered to be a limited stub, and now it is considered to be a full blown article with a vast number of references (secondary sources). They have added multiple headings and expanded information on the exisiting headings. They defined terminology and used lay-man terms when appropriate. The language they used is accessible to communities outside the healthcare system.Jh.ucsf (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the MTP article was very brief to begin with and this group had a lot of room to work on improving the depth of this article. The research group have created various headers regarding crucial information about the topic and they used a generous amount of sources which broadened the articles validity. I think providing history in addition to areas of improvement really demonstrated the articles prevalence and importance.GraceHerron21 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group has met their overall goals for improvement. They expanded with descriptions of the different MPTs and what they can be used as protection against. They were successful in expanding the introduction and history sections with more up-to-date information. Data and statistics cited are also more recent. The group did identify a possibility to add images to the article, unsure if this is still a current goal for the group.Katstudies (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Before the group members had edited the article, the Multipurpose Technology article was bare and had minimal details. However, the group has completely renovated the article to include multiple sections which explore the devices, as well as a rich history of the topic. There are numerous additional headings with topics that encompass the subject, and plenty of references to back up their text. --Valeriehtun (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they have improved the article by a substantial amount. They were able to expand terminology and explain the different types of MPT. They added additional headings such as prevalence and advantages that increases the amount of information given in the article. They also used reliable secondary sources for their information, and increased the amount of references used.Jh.ucsf (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that this group has achieved its overall goals for improvement as listed on the talk page because they have expanded the explanation of each type of MPT greatly. This group has researched any updates regarding different types of MPT since 2011 and has updated the history section with relevant information. I think this group greatly broadened this article and this information will be a good reference for people in the future.GraceHerron21 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The group’s main claims all appear to use cited secondary sources (reviews, editorials), however, not all sources appear to be open-access without restriction and may need subscriptions to access certain journals. Some of the sources used are primary sources to support claims for MPT in development. As no systematic review or meta-analysis of all of the MPT in clinical development may exist yet, this is acceptable.Katstudies (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft submission for the Multipurpose Technology article reflects a neutral point of view because the information is not meant to sway the audience in any particular way. The group did a great job at using syntax and vocabulary that does not favor the use or disuse of the products. They were able to describe the devices, history, and benefits while also detailing opportunities for improvement. I believe that since they included a section for opportunities for improvement, the article acknowledges weaknesses in order to encourage growth for these products. They did an excellent job at highlighting the important key takeaways regarding Multipurpose Technology in an unbiased way.--Valeriehtun (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

The edits has a moderate level of language that supports DEI and can be slightly improved with some adjustments. For example, when they mention sexual intercourse, they could specify that they are referring to heterosexual/heteronormative sex (which is what I am assuming they are referring to). They could also add a sidenote that when they mention male or female, they are referring to the biological sex, rather than gender. Overall they have covered diverse sources of knowledge and included different backgrounds without stigmatizing any populations. Jh.ucsf (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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

The edits are formatted properly within guidelines and recommendations of Wikipedia’s manual of style. The format that this group used combines two of the templates provided by Wikipedia for an article regarding “tool” and “drug, treatment, or device”. This group uses citations correctly, avoids or explains abbreviations, and has proper spelling. The layout of the Wikipedia page properly begins with a lead section and includes headers for the information below it. The references are all formatted correctly and there does not appear to be any problems with the links.GraceHerron21 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2023 Group A References
Reviewed references # 13-18: no predatory journals and no duplicates Ilu25 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references # 1-6: no predatory journals and no duplicates, added PMIDs and removed months and days in datesCleung1021 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references # 19-24: no predatory journals, consolidated a duplicate citation (previously #23, now #2). Aleong13 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references # 7-12: no predatory journals, no duplicates, added PMIDs, and remove months and days in dates. Ireneliu2025 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)