Talk:Breast prostheses

message: Our group has been assigned to make edits to this page as part of a school project. We will post proposed edits below.Catherinerbarton (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: evaluate history portion in introduction - bolster information and consider making separate sectionCatherinerbarton (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II 2020 Group 1 proposed edits 

message: * The main issue displayed for this article is that it needs citations from reliable sources. After reviewing the article, it seems that the group contributed a large amount of content with proper citations. The more important sections are extensively written but balanced in terms of content found in the subsections. Also, the language used is neutral and not too technical. Group 1’s proposed edits include rearranging topic headings, evaluating the introductory paragraph, creating topic headers, and adding further information. The group addressed all the proposed edits by revising the intro paragraph, editing/creating new headings, specifying the different types and uses of breast prostheses, and ensuring proper citation of information retrieved from a variety of sources.
* In terms of overall formatting, the article has concise heading/subheading titles. In the paragraphs, however, the citations are not consistent. For some citations, there appears to be an extra space after the period, while others do not have the extra space. With guidance from the Wikipedia style article for medicine-related articles, the ‘Uses’ section could be restructured as ‘Surgeries and procedures’ and then each separate surgery could be listed below. The current content seems fine for describing the uses, but can also include risks or complications, technique, etc., if relevant. There was also a sentence in the article that used the word ‘patient’, which would be better if it was reworded so it is written for a ‘general audience’. Lastly, the history section should be moved to the end of the article where it tends to appear according to the style guide.
I. Ly, UCSF (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II 2020 Group 2 Peer Review Comments 

message: I just removed the most recent edit () from a student who is helping to improve this article. Please review the Guideline for Reliable Sources before working on this article. All PubMed articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS gives lots of great suggestions for what can be shared on Wikipedia. Thanks for helping to improve this! JenOttawa (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, @Catherinerbarton as per the Wikipedia way of improving articles, please discuss the source here before re-adding it or reverting my edit. I reviewed a second time and it definitely does not meet WP:MEDRS. Thanks again for all your efforts to improve the article. JenOttawa (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi () thank you for looking at this. We are new students, and didn't realize someone had removed the citation purposefully, I thought I had not entered it correctly and did not think to look at the talk page. For this topic, we have found it difficult to find pubmed articles on breast prostheses that would fit the guidelines and are open access. Is it not possible to cite a pubmed article for information in its background section if it is not a review, meta-analysis etc.? Unfortunately the two sources listed in the background info section of this particular article are also appear to either not be open access or not a review type article, so citing those sources would put us in the same boat. If not, would the next best course of action simply be to delete the sentences from the article or leave it with the "medical citation" needed? We have also been instructed that topics where review type articles and access are sparse, it is sometimes okay to still cite these sources if you are clear about its limitations in the text. Thanks for your input! Catherinerbarton (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear  thank you for touching base and for replying on the talk page. No problem about your mistake of immediately re-adding the removed material. You guys are doing a great job and it is a lot of take in at the start, especially when transitioning from an academic style of writing to Wikipedia. I am not familiar enough with the field to comment if your primary citation should be used in the context that you suggest. I suggest that you share your source on this talk page, along with your argument/opinion for using this primary source. In this case I feel that it is important to give the community a chance to weigh in (leave it on the talk page for a week and/or flag on the WP:MED talk page, and then someone with more experience in this field and knowledge about the availability of WP:MEDRS sources can help. Sorry I was so late in responding! JenOttawa (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What citations are "ready" for Wikipedia