Talk:Vaginal stenosis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaginal stenosis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vaginal stenosis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mvtran, Rdoan, ucsf, E.Espina.UCSF (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emehrabani, L. Martinez future PharmD, Romaseo.

— Assignment last updated by L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group 31 proposed edits

Simplify jargon throughout article

Fill in the diagnosis section

Expand upon the treatment section

Expand upon causes section

Add an epidemiology section

Signs and symptoms?

Add an image for vaginal stenosis ~ maybe a diagram

Add prognosis section

Evaluate current sources used Rdoan, ucsf (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "guiding framework?"

a.1. Yes, the group has clear subjects in the sentences and unbiased perspectives. They have supported the facts with reliable sources with appropriate citation. he group has well catergorized the subjects in convincing order Romaseo (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

b. Overall the article has substantially improved its content. The group's edits are clear, neutral and follow the desired guiding framework format.In addition, the article's is organized and easy to follow for the reader, beginning with short overview and then followed by signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment and epidemiology.Emehrabani (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c. The group’s edits substantially improve the article through their clear, neutral, and reliable content. First, the lead section is easy to follow to gain an understanding of the topic and the most important information. The structure of the article is clear, and the content presented appears in a logical order. There is also a neutral presentation of the content, and the sources utilized are accessible and reliable.L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

a. Yes, 1. the group has well categorised the subjects in convincing order. Each category include important concepts and facts without unnecessary concepts. Does not contain biased thoughts or try to convince the audience. The article and journals are reliable with out blogs or self published.Romaseo (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

b. Yes, the group's goals for improvement included expanding on the signs and symptoms, causes, and treatment sections. Numerous resources and subheadings were added to each of these. In addition, the group added epidemiology and diagnosis sections to their article to provide an encompassing overview of the disease state. The group also aimed to simplify medical jargon throughout the article and the use of hyperlinks provides the user with access to additional Wikipedia articles for language clarification.Emehrabani (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c. This group has achieved its overall goals for improvement because of the addition of key content sections such as signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology that provide a thorough overview of the topic. Medical jargon or procedures were also simplified with explanations or hyperlinks to other relevant Wikipedia articles. L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

a. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The article doesn’t have intention to persuade people or have strong opinions. The idea and position is not biased. It doesn’t contain positive or negative perspective but mostly contain facts on neutral perspective. The subjects of the sentence are clear and not broad. Romaseo (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

b. Are the claims verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes, all paragraphs are supported with at least 2 primary and secondary sources, and each sentence throughout the article has been supported by at least one source. The cited sources are all freely available to the general public for review. Sources are primarily meta-analysis and journals which provide neutral and accurate content representing various studies.Emehrabani (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? Yes, the edits formatted in this article are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The article contains key titles for each section to be able to gain a thorough overview of the topic. They also utilize careful language so that the general public outside of the medical field could understand the content. Throughout the article, the general tone is neutral with no bias present towards a diagnosis or treatment. Citations and relevant references are also formatted consistently and correctly. L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emehrabani (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've read through the comments left for the peer review and will continue to improve the article following Wikipedia guidelines, making sure to cite our claims with well established sources. We will continue to simplify any medical jargon with any added claims and make sure the article is clear and easy to understand.

-Mvtran (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of References

We have gone through and reviewed the viability of these references and updated them to the correct formatting. Of note, we corrected the dating of references 2, 8, 9, 17, 19, and 20-26. No other issues were found. Rdoan, ucsf (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]