User talk:Knmiller1997/New sandbox

Brittney's Peer Review
I like the subsections you have listed for causes of prolonged labor. The sections you plan to expand on are clear. That is something that I haven't done for my article and would be very helpful. I'd recommend adding more information about C sections, since you mentioned that 1/3 of C sections are a result of prolonged labor. You have lots of lists on this page and it would be very helpful if you expanded on the most important ones. The most important thing you can do is expand on those bullet points because while they are long lists, the article appears incomplete without at least a little information on each bullet point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bncontre (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Vanessa's Peer Review
Though it is still in the early stages of producing a full on wiki page, you do a good job introducing the topic of "prolonged labour." I feel that your headings are properly placed and appropriately named. Perhaps before including your bulleted list, maybe a brief explanation or description as to what you will be discussing under that heading (Dangers to the fetus and the mother) and then place the bulleted list underneath. However for the most part, it seems that your draft of your wiki page is a great start. I look forward to reading more of your wiki page by the end of the quarter.

Jimi's Peer Review of Knmiller1997: Prolonged labour
1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? -I really liked that you added links to the pages for scientific language. People are often intimidated by words that they don't know, and referring to pages that are already made saves you from essentially reinventing the wheel. Additionally, the C Section information was definitely necessary. The rate of C Sections in the US is a very big issue, as seen in "The Business of Being Born." I also really appreciate that you chose this topic, since it is important that people have information regarding prolonged labour in order to eventually learn treatment and prevention methods. Generally speaking, the article has potential for good structure and already has good section additions. There were also useful additions of sources; you've added a good amount so far compared to what the article started with, but don't stop now! Although there is much to be added as of now, the article fortunately is generally unbiased thus far. 2. What changes would you suggest the author(s) apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -Are all of the sources that you have used so far listed in the references? Because the page is mostly an outline currently - as is my own article - I think it might be strategic to paste reference links next to the information for now. This way is more efficient for me and it allows me to record all of the information that I want without worrying about the reference formalities until later. Most of the changes that I would suggest relate to new sections and section structure. With regard to the "Causes" section, it might be useful to eventually elaborate greatly on these causes in a way that will be clear to the average person. Many might be struggling with these conditions, but they might be intimidated because they are unfamiliar with scientific language. I think it may be useful to add a section for famous cases involving prolonged labour after "Causes;" this will give necessary background in helping readers understand the context of these issues. In terms of "Dangers to the Fetus and the Mother," it might be useful to separate that into two sections: for example, long-term and short-term issues. I believe it might be helpful for readers to have "Solutions and Treatments" in its own section; I originally overlooked that heading because I was looking for it in a new section! It'd also be good to consider adding the word "prevention" in the title so that the section can include multiple types of solutions. Additionally, it might be useful to consider adding the effects on prolonged labour status when utilizing a midwife and other non-traditional means of birthing. Personally, I believe that moving around the sections would benefit readers. I as a reader believe that the following is an intuitive order: Signs and Symptoms, Causes of Prolonged Labour, *Famous Cases Involving Prolonged Labour*, Dangers to the Fetus and the Mother, Solutions, Treatments, and *Prevention* (all newly suggested names and sections in *asterisks*). Finally, the C Section portion does not contain completely neutral language. Rather than "often times," consider using other wording such as "in some cases" or perhaps provide a statistic that suggests that it happens often without explicitly saying so. It may also be useful to use a structure such as one used in the following: "while some insist that a c section is the best solution, others say..." This will be helpful in providing an unbiased article. 3. What's the most important thing the author(s) could do to improve the article? -I noticed that the lead section has not been changed from the original article. While this in itself does not pose an issue, I think it would be good to check if the first sentence is completely based in truth. To me, it does not make sense that the two types of prolonged labour -- latent and active phase of labour -- each contain an amount of hours lower than 18. In other words, how can latent phase of labour -- when a mother is in labour for longer than 8 hours -- be considered a branch of prolonged labor when the term refers to birth periods longer than 18 hours? Because it does not make logical sense to me, it causes me to question the validity of the statement. If the statement is in fact accurate, I believe it would be helpful to provide and explanation as to why the statement is true. Regardless of if it is true, I think a little more detail in the lead would be helpful to readers. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! -To be honest, there aren't very many similarities between our topics. However, I enjoyed the thoughtfulness of your section additions, and it's making me think harder about the sections that I should add. Right now, we only have links and summaries to important references, but we should use your idea and make bullet points as a better means of outlining. Thank you, good luck! -Jimi Feldman

Jrfeldma (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Kendall's Peer Review Response
I think all the information and feedback provided by my peers were very helpful. At the time when the reviews were taking place, it was definitely in the early stages of being written. I had more of an outline than an informative text at the time. I will be rewriting the general introduction as well as differentiating between active and latent labor, specifically. I will also be seeking out more sources and increasing the general length of my article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knmiller1997 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)