Talk:Pessary

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): E. Nguyen Pharmacy, Adrianagardner, Y.Jung, Future UCSF Pharm.D, Danielak290.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group [X] proposed edits

Our group is planning to make the following changes:

-Add citations -Rewrite introduction to include more general information. -Add more information on history. -Expand information on types of pessaries and delete unnecessary information that does not match the information in the pictures. -Added more information on side effects and complications.

Y.Jung, Future UCSF Pharm.D

translation error?

"Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion." although this is a common translation the actual wording is, "γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω" γυναικὶ = woman, πεσσὸν = medical instrument inserted into vagina, φθόριον = damage. φθόριον(fthoreon) is used specifically in the legal context of φθόριον ἕδνον, or "damage payment" being the compensation paid for the defloration of a virgin. it's more likely this section states thou shall not deflower a virgin in the course of your medical practice when describing vaginal wear as no reference is given at all to pregnancy.

Untitled

Chambers English Dictionary says a pessary is "a vaginal suppository", and a suppository is "a soluble preparation of medicine ... which dissolves when it is inserted into the rectum (in full a rectal suppository) or into the vagina (in full a vaginal suppository)" the italics and bold are present in the dictionary.

I will change the article accordingly. 87.112.56.36 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How commonly are they used? Ventifax (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pessary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160324025247/http://www.dr-arabin.de/e/cerclage.html to http://www.dr-arabin.de/e/cerclage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Provided by Group 17

1. All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:

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

· Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group's work did improve the article, especially with increasing the amount of background context and types of pessaries available. It was very informative including the historical background on the initial uses of pessaries and adding the various categories/forms of pessaries that have been made for different indications. According to the Guiding Framework, the new edits to the article have a easy to understand introductory paragraph, clear context and structure, and reliable sources that consists of many journal articles. I believe the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement of the article. --MCheng14 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Megan Cheng (MCheng14)

This group's edits improved the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework." The introduction now provides a more detailed overview on pessaries and its history of use. The section on the types of pessaries does a comprehensive job on covering the uses and differences of each pessary. The inclusion of the side effects section helped balance the article by not just covering the benefits but also including valid points on side effects and complications. Overall, I found this article easy to read due to the organization of the sections and also found it to be clear, balanced and neutral. This group was able to accomplish their goals of using reliable sources in order to build a stronger introduction, and cover the types of pessaries and side effects.R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC) R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D.

The group's edits achieved their overall goals for improvement and have greatly improved the article. The introduction is detailed and appropriate with historical information on the use of a pessary. The structure of the whole article is consistent and falls within guidelines of the manual of style that Wikipedia suggests. Furthermore, they added well-written content on the various types of pessaries used for each indication and included an appropriate image in the correct section. The tone of the overall article was neutral without any bias or persuasion for the reader. The strengths of this article definitely include the concise and informational content on each type of pessary. It was easy to understand and follow. --J.Wong, UCSF Future Pharm.D. (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe, based on the guiding framework, the group achieved its overall goals for improvement of the article. The article is written in a neutral tone and easy to understand for a general reader. The group has successfully added reliable citations throughout the article. The group has done an impressive job, improving the content of the introduction by adding a very informative and complete background. The article now includes a very well written section, dedicated to various types of this device. In the end, the group added a new section for side effects and complications, which adds a great value to the article.K.BehzadMoghadam (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC) K.BehzadMoghadam — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.BehzadMoghadam (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

2. Each group should divide up the prompts below so that a different person responds to each question. Please sign your comments with your name and account name so that you receive credit.

· Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… The draft submission has a neutral point of view. At no point in the article does it include language that suggests a bias for or against use of pessaries or prejudice. There were a few areas that included the word "patient" which may signify that the article was written to an audience of healthcare professionals, and therefore should be changed.

Some suggested edits - Removal of "patients" from "Ring with Support Pessary" and "Marland Pessary" sections. This language may be healthcare professional-focused. - Perhaps adding subheadings of "Supporting Pessary" and "Space-occupying Pessary" under Therapeutic Pessary, defining each, and then putting the matching pessaries below for easy-to-follow structure. --MCheng14 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Megan Cheng (MCheng14)

· Person B: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… Yes, the points covered in the article are accompanied by verifiable secondary sources that were cited. These sources were freely available when cross-referenced for accuracy and accessibility.R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D.

· Person C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Most of the edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style. There are some sentences listed under the subheadings of different pessary types that use the word "patient", which makes the article seem more like it was written for medical professionals. I would suggest taking out the word "patient" and replacing it with individual or changing up the sentence structure so the word "patient" can just be omitted. Also, there are many words that may not be understood by the general public such as "Prostaglandins", which should be explained or hyperlinked to the appropriate article. In addition, the subsections for the different types of pessaries should be in sentence form, which means there should not be capitalization of other words mid sentence, unless it is a name. Example. Ring with Support Pessary --> Ring with support pessary . I noticed there is an abbreviation(?) in the last subsection of the stem pessaries that links the word "os" to cervical canal article. The wikipedia manual of style recommends to spell out abbreviations and include the actual abbreviations next to the word in parenthesis. (ex. Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)). --J.Wong, UCSF Future Pharm.D. (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

· Person D. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? No, the article is 100% original, and there are no signs of plagiarism or copyright violation.K.BehzadMoghadam (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC) K. BehzadMoghadam

R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk)R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)