User talk:Amador v/sandbox

''"ARTICLE EVALUATION" For Infertility in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? This article is relevant to half of the worlds population. It summarizes about how one of the factors of infertility is due to PCOS. That anovulation affects 75% of women, making it the lead of infertility. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome disrupts ovulation in the woman's reproductive organs. There is very little information on the prognosis section, to where I see it only ends with "not increase with miscarriage." This makes me want to know what this means.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article is neutral. it focuses mostly on anovulation being the common cause affecting the hormone release for the pituitary gland. It has very little info on how managing the disorder can lower the disorder. In this section I would add which symptoms are most difficult to control. This would be the opportunity to add info on what lifestyle changes can be made to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle. It also includes on what possible surgeries are available but I would include the stats and number on how successful they may or maynot be. It only mentions possible adjustments but does not really emphasize on the aftermath.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations is made of journals, and forums that are not really credible. Some of the citations are dated as far from the past 5-10 years. The citations are many but are from sources called pacific fertility center, oxford academic forums, National library of medicine national institute of health, and American society for reproduction medicine.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? As I had mentioned before some of the info they had was from 5-10 years ago which is more likely to be less helpful since more studies have been conducted in recent years. They should have more recent stats, sources, and additional info on what surgeries are available as well as the risks involved for safety measures.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I feel there should be more reliable medical sources for claims of what may be affecting women to develop infertility issues. I saw that there were convos where people were asking for other to look up the proper credible source for one statement. There was also a section where one person was asking if an article was related to the same topic. The article was emphasizing on the measures of diet and lifestyle prevention of the disorder.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?'' Is is a wikiproject medicine. The article was stated as a start-class article on wikipedia, as well as mi-importance, and being supported by the medicine task force. This article has a lot of info on what options women who have this disorder may have but does not show real numbers of studies, so to say very little updated research.

Possible Topics
Eye Liner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_liner

Bot Fly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botfly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amador v (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)