Talk:Heterotopic pregnancy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 20 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hollireynolds7. Peer reviewers: Olivetabasco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

TCOM Medical Student Editing Heterotopic Pregnancy

Article Evaluation

Question	Comments
Initial analysis of the article?	This is a start-class article so there is room for improvement and expansion The tone is neutral and appropriate The article is lacking sufficient content and there are areas that are outdated or missing information Pathogenesis has no references
Overall organization?	Well-organized but lacking important information
What will you change/add?	Overall, increase the amount of content Update management, including local feticidal injection Update Epidemiology Expand upon prognosis and differential diagnosis
Which sections will you prioritize?	Changes and additions will be made to each section

--Hollireynolds7 (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead:

Has been edited to include more relevant info and provide more context. The opening sentence has been edited for accuracy and clearly opens the topic. It doesn't include the major sections of the article, but I don't think it needs to, it would add unnecessary wordiness.

Content:

The article has been edited for accuracy and contains up-to-date information on heterotopic pregnancy that was not previously in the article, such as the part about how this is no longer a rare phenomenon due to increased prevalence of assisted reproductive techniques. The article definitely had missing content before and many of those gaps have been filled with this new draft, of note the management subheading has been updated with plenty of relevant information that was not there before.

Tone:

It appears unbiased and neutral in tone. There is no opposing viewpoints that are over or under represented.

Sources:

All new edits to this article have corresponding sources that are current and reputable.

Organization:

The article is well organized, concise, and easy to read. I appreciate that only the most relevant information is added and hasn't been made to be unnecessarily wordy or riddled with any jargon, I feel that it is very informative but still understandable to any layperson who comes across the article. The information is broken down well into topics that are easy to navigate.

Overall impression:

The article prior to Holli's edits left a lot to be desired and she was able to see the gaps in information and fill them accordingly. The article has plenty of content now where it is needed without being too wordy or difficult to understand. I appreciate that she added relevant and up to date information without adding too much and without adding complicated language that exists in the cited articles, it is well-translated for the lay-person to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivetabasco (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)