Talk:Apgar score

message: Thanx, Lupo, you can see that I'm not a native speaker/writer. We do seem to share the wolf bit Jfdwolff 20:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, snap! I'll see if the relevant wikiproject can be bugged. Ubiquitously, by the way. --Kizor 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: There is no weighting in the score, it gives  integer values ,I presume they just meant a 9 at 1 minute and a 9 at 5 minutes (it is usually recorded twice), medics are very good at over-abbreviating things or recording things in ways that you would only know if you are "in the club" (trust me I'm a doctor!)  .Arfgab (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Does anybody know who Jared Barnhill is?  Maybe that was a random name insertion? 165.214.12.77 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. A vandal. Reverted. Anastrophe (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who? 

message: I noticed that a couple details in this article are inaccurate.
1. "A low score on the one-minute test may show that the neonate requires medical attention..."
* This statement is misleading at best. Resuscitation, if required, should already be underway by the first minute of life.
2. "An Apgar score that remains below 3 at later times—such as 10, 15, or 30 minutes—may indicate longer-term neurological damage..."
* A low apgar score at the fifth minute of life is NOT predictive of future neurologic dysfunction.
I recommend that the information in this Wikipedia page be compared with the information in the article, The Apgar Score, by the American Academy of Pediatrics. As well, I will also note that there is a discrepancy between the mind map and the information in the page. The mind map indicates that a pulse between 0 and 60 is awarded 0 points, while the Wikipedia page would give one point for the same heart rate.
:So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 18:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to improve accuracy 

message: Hopefully, this may help you find additional sources for your editing:
:
Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 1.
A) Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The lead section was clear, there was no edits made to this section (And I do not think any are needed). There is a clear structure of the article with the implementation of scores being followed by limitations of the scores. This is a logical outline to follow along with giving balanced coverage by showing data for and against the score. The sources are reliable and drawn such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 
B) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
The group may have determined who Jared Barnhill is but did not write about Jared in the article. The group discussed when the Apgar score is used, but did not report any statistics regarding the proportion it is used in hospitals. The group used reliable sources for the articles, but the American Academy of Pediatrics is not cited.
2. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?
There is some similarities to guidelines regarding resuscitation information in "Implementation of Scores" section. The limitation section also closely mimics the citation. However, these information in these section would be hard to not adhere to closely to the citation.
Sabrinabulla (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabrina's Peer Review (Group 6A)

message: 1a. Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The lead section of the article was well written. There were no edits made to this section. There is a clear structure and it is written in an order that is easy to follow (i.e. defining apgar score, criteria, interpretation of the score, and limitations for its use). All sections of the article are given an appropriate amount of space and there is a good distribution of information throughout. The content added to the article is neutral and they did a good job citing the articles and using systematic reviews as reliable sources.
1b. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
This article has definitely been improved although all the goals stated on the talk page were not achieved.
2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…
Yes, all the points that are included are cited and with sources that are freely available.
Amandabair (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amanda's Peer Review - Group 6a

message: 1. a. Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The lead section was easy to understand. It begins with the definition of Apgar Score, which is helpful in introducing the topic. No edits were made to this section. The article is divided into sections (for example: “Implementation of scores” and “Limitations”) that are clearly labeled according to the subject. These sections were not there before. The group added this new information, which gives the reader more information about when and how the Apgar Score is used. The content is worded to sound neutral. It simply provides the reader with information about how the score is used and interpreted. The article also uses systematic reviews to provide information about the limitations and implementation of Apgar score. However, the sentence:“A systematic review that analyzed the relationship between umbilical cord pH and neonatal outcomes found that low cord pH is strongly correlated with mortality,morbidity and cerebral palsy in childhood.[7]” appears to begin abruptly as it begins with “umbilical cord pH” without any introduction. 
b. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
The group did not determine who Jared Barnhill is. They also did not specifically provided statistics on how often the Apgar Score is used, but they provided extensive information on the scenarios when the scores are implemented and the limitations of using the Apgar Score.
2. Person C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…
The edits are formatted with a clear structure. They divided the information into sections with information that is consistent with the title of the section. The writing style is conducted in a neutral manner. The sources consist of review articles and .org websites dedicated specifically to Apgar score.
NoraCortez (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nora's Peer Review (Group 6a)

message: 1a: Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
* Sections are organized well and flow in a logical manner (introduction of Apgar score, to criteria, interpretation, implementation, limitations). Each section seems equal in length and importance. 
1b: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
* The first goal was "rescinded", and although the second goal is slightly addressed under interpretation of scores, that section discusses frequency of use, but not how commonly it is used in hospitals overall. Third goal was difficult to find, and as aforementioned in another peer review, the American Academy of Pediatrics is not cited.
2a: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
* Draft submission has a neutral point of view
Knguyen525 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 6a: Kim Chi's Peer Review