Talk:Pubarche

Age

"SMR 2 - pubarche: the development of pubic hair. Occurring at a mean age of 11.6 years in females (range 9.3-13.9 years) and 12.6 years in males (range 10.7-14.5 years), this stage describes vellus hair - sparse, fine, straight, downy hair - over the labia or the base of the penis." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/pubarche) Excerpt from: Jonathan T. Avila: Normal Adolescent Growth and Development, Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences, Elsevier, 2021, ISBN 9780128012383, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818872-9.00011-X. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012818872900011X) -- 2A01:C23:6DFB:2200:A069:443E:FCBF:201E (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lghad, Mayybellee, CatherineOGonzales, Zoegeng yourong0111 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023: Group Edit Goals

1. Add a note about the fact that we don't have many secondary resources on the definition of pubarche; 2. Expand on the topic of premature pubarche and delayed pubarche and their treatments under additional headers (Pathology and Treatment); 3. Add more information about what pubarche is like in different sex; 4. Change the wording to be more inclusive; 5. Add references to medical jargon that need defining to general public readers. Zoegeng yourong0111 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Reference Changes

Lghad reviewed references #1-7: Reference #1 has no source date so the access date was used instead. Reference #2 was available on February 2023 - this was used for the source date. Reference #3 was formatted correctly. Reference #4 was edited to include the correct publication date of March 2020. Reference #5's source date was edited to April 2013. Reference #6 and #7 were formatted correctly. No predatory publishers or duplicate references were found. Lghad (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

zoegeng_yourong0111 reviewed references #8 -14: #9 was missing the month in the date; #12 was an article on UpToDate which is inappropriate to reference; #13 has incorrect form of date. All other references are appropriate. Zoegeng yourong0111 (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

CatherineOGonzales reviewed references #23-30 (correctly formatted dates for ref #24, 27). No duplicates were found.CatherineOGonzales (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mayybellee reviewed references 15-23 (second half of Premature Pubarche and first half of Delayed Pubarche sections).

• 15, from Pediatric Endocrinology, was cited correctly- only publication year available.
• 16-18 were cited correctly.
• 19 added month of publication (April).
• 20. Modified date of publication to show month and year (July 2012).
• 21-22 cited correctly.
• 23 was cited twice in the same paragraph, removed one of them and left the citation at the end of the paragraph. Mayybellee (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference #19 is an article published by Frontiers. In 2015 Frontiers Journals was questioned to be a predatory publisher. See article on this: https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f Zoegeng yourong0111 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

References #6, #7, and #8 were primary sources in the 'environmental exposures' paragraph and the group decided to delete these since we've been encouraged to use secondary sources. Lghad (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023: Group B (Anal Plug) Peer Review

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
· The group made improved the article by adding more citations and references to expand on the information for the article. The article is very clear and organized with good citations. Keochui ucsf (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
· Yes, the information the group has added has significantly improved the article, comparing it to what it used to look like. I think more citations could be added since I think the training said they recommend a citation every 2-3 sentences, but other than that the article looks good! Elizcheung (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
· Yes; the group added a significant amount of information drawn from reliable sources which they cited. The article is well organized and thorough. The one problem I have found is they do cite original research on several occasions rather than secondary sources. Friedchicken96 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your feedback, we definitely want to fix this...do you remember which references you came across? Lghad (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

.Absolutely yes. The group did a great job improving the article with the citations and resources type used compared to what it originally was. PharmDcooking (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
· Yes, the group wanted to add more information and headers for organization, which they did. They also made the article more inclusive and more accessible for the general public.Keochui ucsf (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
· For the most part, yes. Premature and delayed pubarche and their treatments have a substantial amount of information in their section. Male and female pubarche are also detailed, and the wording is more inclusive, however I don't see the statement about the lack of secondary sources. Not sure if it's because secondary sources were found or the team is still working on the article. Elizcheung (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
· Yes, the group added more information and improved the organization so that it was laid out like a medical article, which was their primary goal. They used lay language when possible and linked relevant medical topics to minimize jargon. Friedchicken96 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
. Overall yes. The group organized the article in a good shape, and they also have a nice pattern/ flow of addressing the information to the readers. In addition, they included a lot more information with good sources. PharmDcooking (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
·Yes, the draft has a neutral point of view. I did not find any words or phrases that seemed to have a certain claim.Keochui ucsf (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
· The citations are not entirely secondary (ie: citation 3), however the vast majority of the sources cited are secondary. Additionally, not all cited secondary sources were freely available; for example, citation 2 is from a textbook which requires a subscription for access. Friedchicken96 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
· Yes, overarching headings with relevant subheadings are added for premature, delayed, and average age. However, there were some citations not placed at the end of the sentence after the final punctuation mark. Elizcheung (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?
. Yes, overall the editors used very good language to support and include diversity, equity, and inclusion. The language used enables the editors to connect and engage with others, and also attracts more diverse range of readers.PharmDcooking (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

An excerpt of this article is available on ScienceDirect. Written information came only from this excerpt. It can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/pubarche. Zoegeng yourong0111 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)