Talk:Miscarriage

message: Is it considered a miscarriage if the body simply absorbs the zygote/embryo and it never gets expelled by the body?★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit unsure by reading the article. 

message: The text is "Bleeding during pregnancy may be referred to as a threatened miscarriage. Of those who seek clinical treatment for bleeding during pregnancy, about half will miscarry."
The ref is 
Comment was "This is NOT what the abstract says. It says in a certain study, half miscarried. It is NOT a prediction. This is a serious subject and should be treated with more respect. What may be needed is additional, better sources."
The abstract says "Bleeding occurred in one fifth of recognised pregnancies before the 20th week and over half of these miscarried." Were does WP say it is predictive?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Per the following

message: 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The edits did improve the article. 
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
The first goal met their first goal. The second goal has not been achieved yet.  
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
Yes, the edits are formatted correctly. 
Fannnypack (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanny's Peer Review for UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c goals 

message: "The FDA has classified medications into pregnancy categories which may increase the risk of fetal damage, including miscarriage. For example, atorvastatin, a pregnancy category x drug, is contraindicated in pregnant women."
The FDA per the second source has stopped using these letters. Plus nowhere does it mention atorvastatin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: With respect to this text

message: "For example, the presence of chronic stress from socioeconomic status can be a contributing factor."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: How does this relate to prevention?

message: Hi , I noticed you undid an edit to this article and questioned whether it was done maliciously or not. I can assure you that it was not done maliciously, as the editor in question was a participant in one of our programs where we teach medical professionals how to edit Wikipedia. Are there specific errors with the content you removed? It looks accurate and sufficiently cited by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Happy to discuss this edit further. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone this revision, as the previous content contains original research--from the source, "You can also arrange to have a burial" turned into into "Family and friends often conduct a memorial or burial service". Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

text: The edit made by  removed an entire section of sourced content and replaced it with content exactly repeated from the section directly preceding it, as pointed out by  when they reverted your reversion. It was probably an accident, but intent is sometimes difficult to discern here. Kstern (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it duplicated preexisting content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  apologies, I was going off the edit summary and should have looked closer at the article. Thanks! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion