Talk:High-dose estrogen therapy

Pseudopregnancy

Pseudopregnancy should not be merged into this article. It is a natural occurrence in dogs, cats, etc. in which the corpus luteum is maintained (resulting in them behaving as if they were pregnant) even though the animal is not pregnant. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup needs

Memdmarti thanks for looking in; this article is a bit of a mess. I'll put notes here for you, and have watchlisted the page so you don't need to ping my talk; I will see your queries here.

• In this edit, I linked to the actual article to avoid a redirect and corrected an uppercase use of Endometriosis mid-sentence. We would, for example, capitalize eponymous conditions like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, but not endometriosis.
• If you go in to the article and do a ctrl-f (search) on vauthors, you will see that the article uses the vancouver style author citation (you can also see that by looking at nice tidy citations :) which is most typically used in medical articles. Those citation templates can be generated by plugging a PMID in to this template filling tool. I have fixed only some [1] of those that have been added with a different style. (You can find them by doing a ctrl-f and searching for the word "last". But when previous editors have not given a PMID, you have to go to Pubmed to look for it, and when there is no PMID, you have to evaluate whether the source is reliable and then repair the citation template by hand.)
• Book sources require page numbers, which are basically all missing here (some oddly give a starting page number on a range, but no ending page number). (Journal sources also require page numbers or section headings, but WPMED has not been in the habit of doing that, and fixing all of those at this stage will be a chore.) All of these kinds of deficiencies are time consuming to fix in an existing article, and I don't want you to be consumed by them-- you are more valuable as a content expert just looking at the content-- but I raise them just for you to know.
• The article has WP:CITATIONOVERKILL, which you may be able to address by adding one book or one authoritative journal citation on statements that now have three and four citations (of dubious character). See for example androgen therapy for men with three citations, two of which are very old. Does the more recent cover it, and are the other two needed? We often see this as a result of student editing, as they seem to get graded by the amount of text or sources added, even if the addition is not needed. But again, you are more valuable to simply examine the content and let others do this kind of cleanup; I raise it in case you come across something in your routine editing that you can fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you,SandyGeorgia! Will do, Memdmarti (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: WP:CITATIONOVERKILL: In combination with progestins for endometriosis in women. Although initially used alone, progestins were added in the 1960s and 1970s.[11][12][13][14][15] More recently, it has been determined that some In addition, the estrogen diethylstilbestrol is an example of medical reversal as it increases the risk of endometriosis in the treated women and in their female children.[16][17][18] I kept Berkovitz (Kistner) for the first sentence. It is comprehensive, sufficient. Karnaky was a historical primary source of minimal historical interest and the other three ddid not add to Berkovitz. Ottolina and Zondervan are similar. Ottolina is more focused. Deleted Zondervan. OK? Memdmarti (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Endometriosis in women

Here is the section before you edited; it presents a knowledgeable expert with multiple problems.

1. It had hidden templates; see MOS:DONTHIDE- we just don't do that, and that has to be fixed elsewhere. I have removed the templates as they may also trigger WP:NOT.
2. The section is written as a list, which is rarely useful or helpful, and makes it hard for you to expand the content in a helpful way. It would be much more helpful if the list was prosified, but that's not important for now.
3. The endometriosis in women sentence had four very old sources; why does it need four citations? (CITATION OVERKILL)

Along comes a topic expert who tries to fix this mess :) You (and with some corrections from me) ended up with this version. The following could be corrected:

1. There are five citations after the first two sentences, and we don't know which citation verifies which part, and whether they are all needed. The first sentence fits with the rest of the list (which shouldn't be a list at all, but I digress), so should be independently cited.
2. The second sentence covers History, and should probably be moved there, merging it in to the flow of the content there, after making sure it is not already covered there, and hopefully using at most two of the most useful citations rather than five. Alternately, you may feel you need it to expand on points three and four (below), so would use it there rather than in History.
3. The third sentence, added by you IS BEAUTIFULLY and WONDEROUSLY cited to recent reviews, that are even correctly formattted! This is fabulous; you have learned much along the way about the vagaries of Wikipedia. But ... Do we need all three, or can it be reduced to two? See MOS:CURRENT; the word "recently" becomes meaningless in a dynamic environment. It is better to be more specific, so the statement doesn't become dated ... "since xxxx, it has been recognized that" or "in xxxx, it was discovered that" ... anything more specific to date the content and avoid using the word "recently". Also, I believe that sentence belongs in "Side effects", no ?
4. The fourth sentence: avoid sending our readers scurrying about to other articles, particularly without explaining why. You should almost never add a See (this article) in text, but should wikilink the other article seemless into your written text. So, combining three and four, you might remove all of that from this section, and move it to the Side effects section, with text something like this:

   Since xxxx, usage of estrogens to treat endometriosis in women has been reversed because estrogens increase the risk of endometriosis in the treated women and in their female children.

That's a start, although this article has many more issues. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you,SandyGeorgia! Will do, Memdmarti (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)