Jump to content

Talk:Delayed puberty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)
Always good to have new editors who know what they are doing. Definitely a pleasant surprise.
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)
Line 43: Line 43:


[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]], that means the world coming from someone so well-established in the wikipedia community! We were taught to use the right sources and how to properly search on pubmed so I have only used the resources recommended in class. As to the [[MOS:MED#Content sections]], I can always move the epidemiology/definition section to the end, but since it has the definition, it seemed more appropriate in the beginning. Thoughts? --[[User:Poodle0011|Poodle0011]] ([[User talk:Poodle0011|talk]]) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]], that means the world coming from someone so well-established in the wikipedia community! We were taught to use the right sources and how to properly search on pubmed so I have only used the resources recommended in class. As to the [[MOS:MED#Content sections]], I can always move the epidemiology/definition section to the end, but since it has the definition, it seemed more appropriate in the beginning. Thoughts? --[[User:Poodle0011|Poodle0011]] ([[User talk:Poodle0011|talk]]) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Poodle0011|Poodle0011]], I'm glad to hear that the training was what [[WP:Med]] editors look for in student editing. As for [[PubMed]], yes, that is a good resource, but it includes primary sources in addition to reviews. WP:MEDRS recommends generally avoiding primary sources; so that's why I pointed that out. As for the "Timing and definitions" section, it's best that it come first. I just wanted to point to MOS:MED#Content sections to give you an idea of how we format medical articles. It seems you were maybe already aware of how we format medical articles? One thing to keep in mind with regard to [[MOS:HEAD]] is lowercase; that's why I keep changing your capitalized pieces to lower case. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, you don't need to ping me to it. I'll see your replies and other comments and respond if needed. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 00:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Poodle0011|Poodle0011]], I'm glad to hear that the training was what [[WP:Med]] editors look for in student editing. As for [[PubMed]], yes, that is a good resource, but it includes primary sources in addition to reviews. WP:MEDRS recommends generally avoiding primary sources; so that's why I pointed that out. As for the "Timing and definitions" section, it's best that it come first. I just wanted to point to MOS:MED#Content sections to give you an idea of how we format medical articles. It seems you were maybe already aware of how we format medical articles? One thing to keep in mind with regard to [[MOS:HEAD]] is lowercase; that's why I keep changing your capitalized pieces to lower case. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, you don't need to [[WP:Ping]] me to it. I'll see your replies and other comments and respond if needed. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 00:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:30, 28 January 2019

WikiProject iconMedicine: Genetics C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Poodle0011 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lablabz.

WikiMed Project Medical Student Edits

Hello! I am a 4th year medical student pursuing a career in pediatrics who is enrolled in a WikiMedicine Project course designed to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia. Over the next four weeks, I will be editing this page to provide improved information on the cause, diagnosis, management, and epidemiology of delayed puberty.

This article has been rated a C on the project's quality scale and is rated as high importance on the project's importance scale. I aim to improve this page by expanding the level of detail using quality resources from medical databases.

Here are my goals: 1. To check all sources for potentially broken links or poor evidence 2. To edit the cause section to provide more information that is not in a list format, as well as include mechanisms/risk factors/triggers/genetics/pathophysiology for each cause, providing a more succinct, but complete place for viewers to find information 3. To generalize the normal timing section to more populations and include more epidemiological data 4. To expand the diagnosis sections to provide more details 5. To expand the treatment section and include more up-to date treatment options. 6. To include an outlook section 6. To include a society and culture section which includes awareness, cultural history, social perceptions, and notable cases of delayed puberty.

If anyone has suggestions for improvement or opinions on my plan please let me know. Thank you for your help! Poodle0011 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timing and Definitions

Hi all! I am new to wikipedia so I wanted to get your advice regarding this section "Timing and definitions." The part up to the paragraph below the chart does not have citations and refer to the puberty article for sources. I went to the puberty section, but could not find any of that information or the sources the previous author was referring to. Any advice on how to deal with this information? I would like to remove it since it is not supported by citations. I am trying to find similar information though because the world differences are relevant to this talk. Let me know! --Poodle0011 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poodle0011, per WP:Preserve, try to preserve the material. Look for sources on the matter. If you don't find any, feel free to remove the material. If you reply to me on this, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article, and sourcing and formatting

Poodle0011, I just want to say thank you for improving this article. I see that you have used some WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, which was a pleasant surprise with regard to student editing. Try to sick with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. For example, try to avoid WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding format, I meant to point to MOS:MED#Content sections. A medical article format should try to follow one of the ones at MOS:MED. It doesn't have to exactly follow any outline there, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, that means the world coming from someone so well-established in the wikipedia community! We were taught to use the right sources and how to properly search on pubmed so I have only used the resources recommended in class. As to the MOS:MED#Content sections, I can always move the epidemiology/definition section to the end, but since it has the definition, it seemed more appropriate in the beginning. Thoughts? --Poodle0011 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poodle0011, I'm glad to hear that the training was what WP:Med editors look for in student editing. As for PubMed, yes, that is a good resource, but it includes primary sources in addition to reviews. WP:MEDRS recommends generally avoiding primary sources; so that's why I pointed that out. As for the "Timing and definitions" section, it's best that it come first. I just wanted to point to MOS:MED#Content sections to give you an idea of how we format medical articles. It seems you were maybe already aware of how we format medical articles? One thing to keep in mind with regard to MOS:HEAD is lowercase; that's why I keep changing your capitalized pieces to lower case. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, you don't need to WP:Ping me to it. I'll see your replies and other comments and respond if needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]