User:B. Hyland 17/sandbox

My assigned article: Chorioamnionitis.

• Needs more citation, many sentences without citations
• Editing for compliance with Wikipedia Manual of Style
• Somewhat simplified, could add more factors associated with chorioamnionitis
• Anatomy text, treatment, signs/symptoms needs citations
• I would like to look into how much secondary literature there is available on this topic
• Has very little on the talk page, one user from 2007, one user from 2012
  • One thing mentioned is that it should be more clear that chorioamnionitis is a fetal disease
• Add a section on microbiology, incidence, neonatal outcomes, prevention, risk factors
• Association with pre term labor, cerebral palsy

Suspected diagnosis

When intrapartum (meaning during delivery) fever is higher than 39.0°C, a suspected diagnosis of chorioamnionitis can be made. Alternatively, if intrapartum fever is between 38.0°C and 39.0°C, an additional risk factor must be present to make a presumptive diagnosis of chorioamnionitis. Additional risk factors include:

• Fetal tachycardia
• Maternal leukocytosis
• Purulent cervical drainage

Confirmed diagnosis

Diagnosis is typically not confirmed until after delivery. However, patients with confirmed diagnosis and suspected diagnosis have the same post-delivery treatment regardless of diagnostic status. Diagnosis can be confirmed histologically or through amniotic fluid test results such as gram staining, glucose levels, or other culture results are consistent with infection.

Diagnosis sentence for introduction:

Peer review:

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The groups edits do substantially improve the article. Many missing sections were added such as uses, insurance considerations, history, and types. These sections were well-written and provided a good overview of the the topics covered. I thought that the relative size of sections was appropriate. The introduction could be improved by summarizing some of the uses/types for prostheses and focusing less on where prostheses can be bought. I also thought that adding a section/sentence to distinguish or explain the alternative options to breast prostheses could be useful for the average Wikipedia user (+ linking to these alternative options on Wikipedia). Some of the language was a little bit difficult to understand for a person with little information on the topic so consider using more lay language.

The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improvement. At the outset, they sought to re-order some of the sections and add content. Furthermore, they specifically improved the history and mastectomy sessions. They sought to improve the introduction, which they definitely did, but some further improvement could be warranted. The group added a lot of citations which will allow this article to more accurately represent the topic.

The article largely reflects a neutral point of view. Most language did not imply any positive or negative connotation towards breast prostheses or any aspects of breast prostheses. Furthermore, it didn't persuade the other one way or another whether a breast prostheses or alternative was best for them. One area of improvement could lie in the transgender section under uses. Renaming the section could be done to make it more accurate as transgender isn't really a use. Maybe the editors could consider "Use in the transgender community" as an option. Looking into secondary reviews on the use of breast prostheses in this community and/or the attitudes of this community might help improve this section's verbiage and language ensure that the community and their use of these products are being described in appropriate terms. Another area that could be worth reviewing is the psychosocial section to make sure that there isn't any language that persuades. For example, instead of saying "may be a good post-surgical option as an alternative to breast reconstruction" just say is an alternative option to breast reconstruction.