User talk:WikiObGyn/sandbox

Hi, I have some feedback for you!
 * It looks like you copied the article into your sandbox without entering "edit mode" first in the article Tubal ligation. Therefore, many of the references were broken (they linked to the article on tubal ligation rather than to the reference). I've gone through and fixed this, as it can be rather tedious to do in visual editor. In the future, however, ensuring you're in edit mode while copying content is good practice :)
 * I also removed the duplicate table of contents, as the table of contents is automatically generated based on the sections you create and title.
 * Small formatting issue, but section titles are in "Sentence case" not "Title Case". Therefore, instead of the section title "Medical Uses" it would be "Medical uses" and so on.
 * used to permanently prevent a patient from having a spontaneous pregnancy in the future. why the phrasing "spontaneous pregnancy", which links to pregnancy? This seems confusing to me in relation to articles such as Spontaneous conception. Maybe a better choice of words here would just be "pregnancy" or "unplanned pregnancy"
 * I like how you expanded the "Prevalence" section beyond just the US
 * Another minor formatting thing: for internal consistency, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that references should follow punctuation. I see a few instances where a reference or a period precedes a reference. This is easy to fix in visual editor--just drag and drop the reference after the punctuation
 * Try to follow the section ordering and titles as recommended in the Medical content Manual of Style (WP:MEDSECTIONS). For medical procedures, it is as follows:
 * Medical uses
 * Contra-indications
 * Risks/Complications
 * Technique (avoid step-by-step instructions)
 * Recovery or Rehabilitation
 * History (e.g., when it was invented)
 * Society and culture (includes legal issues, if any)
 * Special populations
 * Other animals
 * Not all the sections are mandatory, though, and the order isn't absolutely mandated either. This is a general guideline for effective layout and internal consistency of medical articles. To fit some of your content into this scheme, however, you could fold the "benefits and advantages" section into a section titled "medical uses". Reversal could be a subsection under risks/complications or techniques.
 * I'm seeing some issues with uncited content. In general, it is often a red flag for a paragraph or a section to end without a citation, as every sentence should be cited. If multiple, consecutive sentences come from the same source, it is acceptable to cite the source once at the end of the consecutive sentences. There are exceptions, though! If citing a statistic, a quote, or a contentious/controversial statement, it is best practice to always have a citation after the sentence, even if the following sentence(s) are drawn from the same source material. Here are some examples of content needing additional citations:
 * Tubal ligation does not completely eliminate the risk of PID, and does not offer protection against sexually transmitted infections
 * Many uncited statistics in the Risks and complications section.
 * Only one citation in the Procedure technique section
 * The most popular method of laparoscopic female sterilization, this method uses electric current to cauterize sections of the fallopian tube.
 * This method was pioneered by the American Obstetrician-Surgeon, Frederick Carpenter Irving (1883–1957) in 1924
 * This method was develop by the American Gynecologist and Surgeon, Ralph Hayward Pomeroy.
 * Several uncited paragraphs in Reversal
 * The cost of tubal ligation is reduced if it is performed during a cesarean section, since the tubes are already exposed during the laparotomy.
 * I know a lot of the uncited stuff is not your doing, but transferred over from the original article, which is poorly cited. If you cannot find citations for some of the content in the current article, you can remove it without prejudice or rewrite it entirely.
 * The advice column Go Ask Alice is unlikely to be a reliable medical source (don't worry, I know that it was from the original article!)

You've made some good changes overall to what is a surprisingly poor article and also very important (>500 views/day!) Let me know if you have questions about any of this feedback or if I can help you move forward in any way! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)