Talk:Tampon/Archives/2020

Vandalism
Someone should remove the text "after use, tampons should be consumed to regain the blood you have lost, if this is not done it could lead to iron deficiency and many more serious health problems." --PlutoniumPawn (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It must have been removed, because I don't see it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxyLOL (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 28 proposed edits
Add More citations

Provide hyperlinks for medical jargon

Clarify tampon composition and relation to TSS

Safe Use of Tampons: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/facts-tampons-and-how-use-them-safely

Any contraindications: who shouldn't use a tampon

Tampon Insertion: https://www.playtexplayon.com/tampon-faq/how-to-use (Add section after Design & Packaging

Adjlopez (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Manual-like material
Mkardouh, I removed material you added per WP:NOTHOWTO. Like WP:NOTHOWTO states, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Also see MOS:PERSON and MOS:YOU. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Adjlopez and others from your class, make sure that you are sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical/health material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group [27] Peer Review
Team 28 has contributed substantially to the history and use of tampons. Their addition that mTSS is caused by the "super antigen producing S. aureus" is an interesting one. Another good contribution is the use of tampons in individuals who have never been sexually active but due to the stretching of the hymen they are discouraged from using it. Lastly, there does not seem to be strong evidence of plagiarism at play. One thing they can expand on is sales and amount of revenue the product brings in and the ethics in regards to its cost. AHassani, PharmD Cand (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is well written and is cited well throughout. The additions that were made added greater insight to tampon composition and recommendation for when not to use a tampon. The additions are an improvement to the article as they give more detail into what composes a tampon, when to use a type of tampon and in what conditions a tampon is not recommended. The additions were properly cited with Wikipedia's manual of style and the citations were accurate. The article could change a few of the paragraph introductions to better fit Manual of Style's suggestion not to start with "The, A, or An". " The two main differences are in the way the tampon expands..." " The issue that underlies the governance or..."

R. Diaz, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Overall, I think this group had really great additions to the original article. The new citations provided relevant new information and expanded upon existing information. Even with the addition of new sections, the logical flow of the article as a whole still makes a lot of sense. In their proposed edits on the talk page, this group aimed to add more citation/hyperlinks and additional information regarding safety, directions of use, and contraindications. They were able to add sections of information to expand on mTSS, mercury levels, other uses of tampons, availability of appropriate disposal, and how the tampon has evolved over time to increase safety for users. All of this information is backed with quality citations. They also added citations to existing statements on the article to further improve reliability of information. I liked that they included studies and even law cases relevant to the topic. I did see that some sections they added were taken out after review, such as one dedicated to instructions of us.

The points included are all verified with at least one secondary source. Most of these sources are from published reviews and journals. They also cited important product information directly from the FDA. There are also a good amount of hyperlinks that help explain mentioned topics beyond the scope of this specific articles. All of the added articles were easily accessible through the ‘References Tab’. However, some journal articles like [36] ‘Biodegradability of cellulose fabrics’ requires access or payment to read beyond the abstract. One citation, ‘A short history of periods’ [44] didn’t have a link attached at all.

S. Chu Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Overall, the article is well organized and informative, as it covers a wide range of topics that relate to the product. It does well in introducing the product by summarizing the uses, design/packaging, health and environmental considerations, history, and social aspects. They group contributed in providing more information on TSS, history, and environmental section of the article. They were able to successfully incorporate all their proposed edits into the article in ways that makes sense and make the article more informative. I liked the introduction to TSS as it previously jumped into the topic without much background information. However, I would have liked a further explanation such as pathophysiology or signs/symptoms. I also liked their additional with law cases and provided the studies that were relevant. The article is missing contraindications/considerations when it comes to using tampons, but I saw that their edits regarding this topic were removed from the article.

Their article was written with a neutral tone, without using words of persuasion and opinion. Their sentence structures simply stated facts and are cited well to support their claim.

J. fong, future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)