Talk:Reproductive surgery

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Whtchris (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Plan: -Uses (or Medical uses if clarification is required) - Cindy Nguyen -Contra-indications - Jen Nguyen -Risks/Complications - Lynn Nguyen -Recovery or Rehabilitation -History (e.g., when it was invented) - Brittney Nguyen -Society and culture (includes legal issues, if any) -Special populations Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

All group members have contributed to the review of all references in our article for correct formatting.Jennifernguyen0314 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I went through all the sources and can confirm the accuracy of all of our references and its correct formatting. Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Peer review
Question 1.Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

HungryP2 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Person A answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]
 * Person B answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]
 * Person C answers: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]
 * Person D answers: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Question 1: Overall, the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the wikipedia per review "Guiding framework", however, since there is a lot of complications with reproductive surgery, I would recommended a comparison with other types of surgery in relation to reproductive surgery and maybe a study that shows both outcomes. Also each section is a bit too dense with so much informations. I would suggest to break some sections down. Question 2: I would recommend or suggest that to achieve an overall goals for improvement, that the Trends sessions be broken down, and there should be benefit section of reproductive surgery. I think this will tie so well with the risks/complications section. Question 3: The edits did reflect some (not all) language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. The language avoids expressions that can be resumed to be racist, sexist or biased. I would recommend that a disclaimer should be specified at the beginning of the article that the words men, female, men, and women will be used interchangeably. MarySimisola (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mary! Thanks for the feedback you have on our article. Our group had the chance to discuss some of the things you mentioned and we do agree that the information can come off as dense to an average reader. We tried to our best to divide the article into more sections and use more lay language! Jennifernguyen0314 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * The article is very thorough and covers many different aspects of this topic. Some things I might clarify is more clearly breaking up the differences between procedures for female anatomy vs male anatomy within the subsections. For example, in Uses it says “A vasectomy and tubal ligation would be examples of this procedure”. For someone unfamiliar with these procedures, it might be good to clarify within your text which sex each applies to/ use the word “or” instead of “and” to define the contrast more clearly. Also under Uses, the sentence “individuals may often choose to reverse the procedure due to pain experience[d] after the surgery”. To a reader unfamiliar with this topic, the word choice “may often” could imply that it is common for people to have this procedure reversed, as well as that it is commonly painful. Under Trends , I found the Laparoscopy section hard to understand without additional google searches, it would likely be beneficial to explain more about the three steps. For Risks/Complications , the range 0-29% prevalence is huge, it would be good to look for a source with a more precise range or explain why the range is so big. Additionally, since many people reading Wikipedia may only read one section of an article, I think it is important to define acronyms in each section (like ART in Risks/Complications paragraph 4). Finally, in the Contraindications section, I would define the circumstances that could lead to extensive tissue damage or limited success, since if I were a patient just looking up general information that would be very concerning without more context.
 * The article does a very good job with clear structure, neutral coverage and reliable sources, and the introduction covers the key ideas. If the article were to be restructured, Trends could be moved to the beginning or the end, since what it is, uses, risks, contraindications should be together.
 * Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * Yes, the article has expanded the key topics they listed in their plan and provides a substantial amount of information about each topic. I can see how the planned section on History/society and culture/special populations evolved into what is labeled “trends”. From reading their article I get an understanding of each area they covered.
 * Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
 * Yes. Going through the references they are accessible without logging into anything, and are reliable sources for information.
 * PharmD Student Kathryn (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for the feedback!! We removed a lot of information that seemed irrelevant and attempted to make our article more concise. We also added additional references and information that helped explain some of the concepts that we were discussing.  Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll do our best to improve our article based on your suggestions to separate the text to improve reader visibility.
 * 23W1k1UCSF (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback! We also agreed that the Trends section was a bit dense. We have split up the section into the history and the future of reproductive surgery! Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comments on the Trends Section were very helpful! We decided to break it down into sub-sections to make it easier to follow. Lynn.nguyen2 (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Kathryn! You make good points about separating female vs male reproductive surgery! We'll try to incorporate that! Jennifernguyen0314 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Question 1.Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The group substantially added content to the article which was organized in logical order. The group provided a quick lead section that concisely defined what reproductive surgery is and also mentioned some examples which were discussed more in-depth in the following sections.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group achieved the goal of providing plenty of information about the topic. However, based on comments provided in the talk page, they did not addresss the topics of society and culture, Recovery or Rehabilitation and special populations. I think that the trends section is a little long and could benefit by being further subdivided into two sections.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

The article is correctly formatted with Wikipedia's MoS. There was a quick lead section to summarize the topic, The content was divided into sections, no major grammatical errors, and the content was referenced properly.

HungryP2 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! Overall very informative article! Here’s a bit of feedback following Wikipedia’s peer review guiding questions.


 * Lead- Your article’s first sentence concisely explains what the article is going to be about. The optimal lead section would have brief summaries of all the topics (headings) you will cover. I do see an introduction for Uses in your lead, but your lead would benefit with a brief intro of Trends, Risks/Complications, and Contraindications.


 * Content- It must have been difficult with such a broad topic so I commend you on not making it overly detailed.
 * Under “Trends”, Laparoscopy is mentioned as being still common and then there are details of how laparoscopic myomectomies are performed. This is a detail that doesn’t quite fit under the organization of “trends.” Perhaps you could remove that detail or reorganize your article so if you do want to give brief explanations of types of surgery you have a different section for that. That sentence also includes a lot of medical jargon.
 * “The use of stem cells to restore damaged endometrium has shown promising improvements and positive outcomes.” This reads like an introductory statement yet I wouldn’t state this without evidence to back it up.
 * Reproductive Surgery is certainly an overarching topic that could cover information related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. The article briefly mentions gender affirming surgery but it spares from discussing any other controversies/politics/ access to reproductive surgery. The US in particular has a history of sterilization abuse against people of color. That history would fit under this article if you wish to include a topic such as that.


 * Tone and Balance- For the most part, the article is neutral and sticks to the facts. At times it leans a bit narrative especially when ideas are trying to be connected. For example, the following sentence leans out of the neutral zone- “However, the lack of knowledge of medicine eventually led to the tragic mishaps of death”. This also might be an example of drawing your own conclusions. Another example of not neutral language- “Through the progression of time, various advancements and extensive research” The article isn’t attempting to persuade me to believe a certain way and I don’t feel an unbalance of information.


 * Organization- This article might be difficult to read as a lay-person. As an example- “Uterine atony after fetal extraction, and pre-existing maternal coagulopathies have been reported as accepted contraindications for cesarean myomectomies in women.” This sentence has a lot of medical jargon and could be rewritten with simpler language. Another example- “as the result of increased vascular permeability”


 * Images and Media- There’s an opportunity here to spice up the article with images.


 * The article definitely has improved from your work and I see that you have achieved your goals for improvement. Great job on the work!
 * -Kaymowery (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * hiiii Kayla! Thanks for the feedback! We discussed the Trends section as a group and decided to remove any irrelevant information to increase the brevity of the article. We also improved the tone and balance of the article by removing any language that seemed a bit narrative. We also worked to use more lay language and remove any medical jargon throughout the article. Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! This feedback was much appreciated. The medical jargon was found in the section that I was responsible for, so with the help of my group members, we did go through it again to try to remove as much as we could to the best of our ability. Thank you! Lynn.nguyen2 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the feedback! After reviewing the feedback, we attempted to add more language and information regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion within our culture today by briefly discussing gender-affirming surgeries. Brittneynguyen11 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Kayla for the feedback! We tried adding more Wikipedia links and outside resources to help people understand the medical jargon as well! Jennifernguyen0314 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)