User talk:Kim ENGW3307/sandbox

Reviewing draft article on labor induction
The draft is a revision (with many additions) of an existing article on "labor induction". The author has identified some specific sections that have been added to/revised, but I am not going to limit my comments to those sections only since the entire article needs to appear as a cohesive unit and so some quick revisions of section originally written by others will really improve it.

The "Methods of induction" section could be greatly improved by adding some citations and increasing the clarity and definitions of the different techniques. Also, the subsection "Natural Approaches" seems to contradict the first sentence of the article which defines induction as "artificial", so the meaning of natural in this particular context should perhaps be expanded upon.

In the "When to induce" section, the meaning of "cervix is unfavorable" is unclear, and can probably be better worded or quickly defined. There is also some phrasing in this section that seems repetitive or confusing, so some basic revisions would be very helpful.

The "Risks" section includes some very technical words, "nulliparous" for example, that are probably unnecessary and will just make the articles less accessible to a general audience. I would rethink the "neonatal" subsection from the point of view of a non-expert first-time mother seeking out information, remember you can probably provide the same amount of detail with much simpler phrasing. (Note: the "maternal" subsection is much more straightforward so you can use that as a model of sorts on how to be clear while still maintaining a rich level of info.)

The "Global trends" section does not flow well, and would benefit from some attention form the author. The stats appear to have been chosen almost at random, and with no purposeful order, so this may need to be rearranged. Also, some of the stats may need to be verified or updated.

The "Criticisms" section is good but I think you can develop it further with some more nuanced information--this is a very interesting and important section of the article for the audience. One thing to note is that for an encyclopedia article it is not necessary to preface each sentence with "One study...Another study..." etc. You can still present those findings as non-guaranteed and still up for debate, but make the sentences flow a little nicer. The last line, as mentioned in class, seems to be out of place so that should be examined.

Additionally, some minor things:
 * I would add to the one line intro with a sentence or two more about why it exists, just some more really basic information. I recommend checking out some FA's in the field for some good model intros.
 * There are many opportunities to add wikilinks to words throughout the article which can make the article more in line with standards and connect readers to helpful related subjects.
 * Consider spelling out "NICO" the first time it appears.
 * There are probably a lot more "see also" links that would be helpful to provide

You have a great start to the article here, especially the sections you actually wrote from scratch. I think it will be much improved after you (a) check for more accessible phrasing and terminology, (b) consider justification of info provided--more detail/brief definitions in certain places, cut extraneous info elsewhere, and (c) assure a cohesive order and relation of points both within the same and among different sections. Good luck with future revising!

-Nacutler (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review Labor Induction
There are a lot of things going right with this article, but seeing as we talked about your article in class, I will focus on specific areas you can edit to spruce it up.

Right off the bat, I would expand the very first sentence to elaborate just a little bit more. "Labor induction is artificially stimulating childbirth," seems too short as an introduction to a topic which is pretty broad. I would suggest adding something after like "This includes birthing methods such as..."

You can get rid of a lot of extra phrases that make your article read more like an essay than a Wikipedia article. These include: -"One recent study..." in the How to Induce section -"Recent research..." in the same section -When you make references to literature reviews and state it It is better to just state the facts and findings and then site them.

The first sentence in the "Criticism of Induction" seems abrupt. I would add "Induced labor may be more painful for the woman which causes them to be more controversial."

Just a note on style, watch for capitalization errors, mainly on your headings.

We talked about this in class too but your last sentence on non-African Americans can either be taken out or expanded on and maybe put in a different section such as the global trends.

Some more of your words and phrases can either be changed to more laments terms or linked to an article. For example, I didn't know what nulliparous was until we talked about it in class.

Always keep in mind that Wikipedia is generally written for a general audience and should be more approachable to scholars in any field of study.

Chamberlaindan09 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)