User talk:Fairlycromulent

Welcome!
Hello, Fairlycromulent, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Fairlycromulent. Thanks for your addition of a reference to the Clarkstown Central School District page. I noticed that you added the reference as a bare URL, and I just wanted to let you know that most of the time you can generate better-formatted references using the Cite tool that's available with the Visual Editor. You can actually just drop that URL (or a DOI) into the tool and it can usually generate a much better reference - one that's easier to relocate if the information on the page changes or if the website changes the way it names its pages (which happens surprisingly often as websites are improved over time). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Round 1
Major Points The first piece I notice is that a fair amount of the language in your article feels a little bit more technical than seems correct for WP. The sentence "Other antenatal treatments, such as the administration of glucocorticoids to speed lung maturation in neonates at risk for respiratory distress syndrome, led to greater outcomes for premature infants" for example has a few different words or terms that you could probably at the very least link off to the WP pages as an option for readers to more easily understand. You go into a lot of detail which is good, but be sure and watch the language you are using to ensure it is open enough to the public.

Minor Points Follow through with what we discussed about talking to one of the previous editors about including or not including abortion information, and if you will include it how best to frame it for WP standards of neutrality. Doriineia (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #2
Major Points WP:perfect stresses the importance of avoiding the creation of an “orphan” article. This means that an article should have numerous internal and external links. This article could benefit from an increase in these links. Any scientific words, even Obstetrics, can be linked to its corresponding Wikipedia page. That way, readers can easily find definitions to words that they may not understand. Some of these links may seem obvious and unnecessary given the context of the article, however, it could still be helpful to incorporate them. Some examples include, “thrombophilia” or “glucocorticoids”. Another big idea to consider is whether or not the article encompasses all of the pertinent information under this subject. It seems as thought there may be some missing information. For example, what about common procedures that are often done, or maybe what Obstetrics often look out for to protect mothers and their children. WP:perfect asks for an article to be as ‘Self-containing’ as possible.

Minor Points Maybe add an image if possible!

Bagelbites3 (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox move revert
Hi, I've reverted your move of User:Fairlycromulent/sandbox to Maternal-fetal Medicine. There's an existing article at the proper title Maternal-fetal medicine, and so your new article would qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A10 as a duplicate article. You should integrate your content into that article rather than creating a new one. If you need any help, just respond to this message and ping me (by using ) and I'll answer any questions you might have. Cheers, {&#123; Nihiltres &#8202;&#124;talk&#8202;&#124;edits}&#125; 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)