Talk:Delayed puberty

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)

Hello! I am Poodle0011's classmate and I would like to share a few comments as a peer reviewer of this article. My review is organized in the same order of my peer's stated goals above. 1.Intro is very good, I like the placement of embedded links and the positioning of the osmosis video right at the top. I feel you can shed a little more light on constitutional delay (not necessarily adding more information but highlighting it with the writing style), it being the most common cause of delayed puberty. 2. As intended your cause section is very complete. I am impressed by the amount of work put in. All the information is there; however, I feel the level of writing is high for an average reader. I know it’s hard, but maybe it could be simplified a little. 3. Most sentence are cited. You articulated the variations among different races which plays into the epidemiology of the condition. 4. Great section! It has the same flow and organization as the cause section. Additionally, the language is easier also (maybe because there is not as much pathophysiology to explain as the cause section). I would recommend adding an introductory sentence, for example take this sentence from the imaging section: “The first step in evaluating children with delayed puberty involves differentiating between the different causes of delayed puberty. Constitutional delay can be evaluated with a thorough history, physical, and bone age.[4] Malnutrition and chronic diseases can be diagnosed through history and disease-specific testing.[2]” and placing it as in intro to the section. 5.Great and complete section that follows the flow of the article. I would encourage to avoid writing treatment options as guidelines or indications for example: “A progestin should not be added until there is acceptable breast development, about 12 to 24 months after starting estrogen, as starting treatment with progestin too early can negatively affect breast growth” Can be written as: "Progestins are usually added after acceptable breast growth is achieved usually 12-24 months after starting estrogen. Progestin can decrease/supress breast growth therefore timing initial use of progestin is important." 6. This is my favorite section because it gives the reader an idea of what to expect if they had constitutional delay of growth as an adolescent. I feel wording can be simplified eg: “benign growth variant”. Additionally, the article states that there is conflicting evidence if children with constitutional growth delay reach their full height potential, I would consider making the paragraph shorter even keeping it at a sentence since Wikipedia encourages us to stay away from matters of debate.

Overall great contribution to the article! The article can benefit from simplifying the writing style by using simple terms and shorter sentences. Good job and let me know if you have questions!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)