Talk:Prenatal care in the United States

Introduction to prenatal care in the United States

My name is Allyssa Abacan, a junior at Rice University studying Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities. As a course project, we are assigned to write a Wikipedia entry. My initial proposal was to expand and revise the article Prenatal Care. However, it was recommended that I start a page Prenatal Care in the United States to elaborate on the social disparities in prenatal care services. My intention is to elaborate on inequalities occurring in different socioeconomic levels. The information provided (that will be provided) over prenatal care in relation to race and ethnicity existed in the Prenatal Care article and was transferred over to this page.

Please note that I am in the process of editing/creating this current page. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to make this page and the Prenatal Care article better. Thank you. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A minor point on layout - Usually articles start with the article title in bold. I did this part way, but didn't come up with a good lead that started Prenatal care in the United States. (WP:Lead) Zodon (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Insurance coverage

I reworded things a bit[1] in the section currently titled "Increase insurance". The previous text seemed to present things as overly contradictory. For example, I don't think insurance coverage requires a mandatory managed care program, so I removed the word however. Biosthmors (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to the page

I understand that I need to edit the lede in order to fit Wikipedia's manual of style guidelines. If anyone has any further formatting suggestions, they are more than welcomed.

Thank you. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Your formatting looks fantastic. The bolding for the first words as well as the multitude of wikilinks makes this look great. You broke up your article into many subsections- which is great.

Even though I recognize the flow of the first sentence to the rest of the idea, it still seems contrived and misleading to begin the article with the history rather than using a definition or other type of general introductory statement. I think you would be better off starting with where we are now, even, if you like the history theme so much.

Your lead and introductory paragraphs are short, and to the point, which is great. I still think that your attitudes paragraph should begin with any positive correlations that exist, such as what evidence finds women DO see about healthcare. If all races have the same attitude toward prenatal care, phrase it like that rather than the double negative "there are no differences". Also, I think you should explicitly state that your evidence is directed towards their attitude towards accessing care rather than actual prenatal care. Stating that your evidence represents populations of the United States and including that kind of tagging within the attitudes paragraph would make it more explicitly clear why this article needs to be separated from Prenatal Care, because as it sounds now, none of this belongs in its own article necessarily.

I see the same problem of not explicitly stating that this evidence represents populations in the United States in the Disparities subsection. I know you do not want to be repetitive but I think it is important that you throw that information in regularly in the article. I like that you tagged the other article "Mexican paradox" at the top of the applicable subsection.

In contributing factors, pre-conception care is a dead link, so you should remove that tag.

I love the organization, the subheadings, and the bulleting.

It is great you have so many sources!

Absolutely wonderful job! Lbockhorn (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

Disagree about removing the link to pre-conception care, please see WP:red link. It is entirely reasonable that an article about pre-conception care should exist in Wikipedia, and such an article would be relevant/related to prenatal care. Red links help build wikipedia, and they ensure that appropriate connections will be made once the relevant article is created. Zodon (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That is actually really interesting! would you advise that others do that to their articles?

Thanks, Lbockhorn (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

Thanks for your feedback! They were very helpful. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

About lead - length, etc

In response to a recent edit, Allyssa.abacan asked how long I think the lead should be. Given the size of the article, I think that a couple of modest size paragraphs, like this is reasonable. (Not that it be those particular paragraphs, just that is a reasonable size for a lead.)

But I go more by content than by just size. There is nothing wrong with the size of the current lead , however it has some repetition, many of the sentences have excess words, and I do not think that it clearly lays out the main points. I am a fan of Strunk and White The elements of style, and try to remember their dictum of eliminate useless words. (The wikipedia article has a longer quotation that covers the matter) This is of course hard to do in one's own writing.

So, rather than focusing on how large (or small) should it be - I would focus on what are the main/key elements in the article. Does it cover the essential items clearly. Then look at the writing to see what can be removed. (What sentences are not essential, then how can I simplify those that remain, what words can be removed or simplified, etc.) As somebody once observed, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away."

These are some of my views on the mater since you asked, but style is individual so adopt what you find of use. Hope this helps.

The one other comment about the lead - since this article is about geographically limited coverage of a larger topic, the lead should serve as a bridge or introduction to the general area. (i.e. should not assume that I already know what prenatal care is, so there may be some summary of the prenatal care article, as well as summarizing this article). Zodon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to edit the lead accordingly. Thank you for help. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Edit

I thought this was an extremely informative and well thought out article! I thought you utilized links, bullets, and subheadings very effectively. I liked the organization of information as well. I would recommend though, that you move the "Contributing factors" section from under "Latina paradox" and give it its own subheading within "Disparities in accessibility" so that it would be 3.3 instead of 3.2.2. Organizationally, I feel it would help the section to flow better that way. I noticed that the section "Improving prenatal care" was marked as out dated. The statistics seem to be from 2010 which is only two years ago. Do more current statistics exist yet or was 2010 the most current you could find? I thought the section on improving prenatal care was a nice touch to bring your article full circle. Overall, very informative article, great job! Cnovoa17 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I put the needs updating tag there. Healthy People 2010 were goals set in 2000, with the aim of achieving them by 2010. The current version of the goals is healthy people 2020 (goals to try to reach by 2020). I have not looked up what the prenatal care goals are from healthy people 2020 (some of the goals become less concrete, some of them more concrete). No objection to including the old goal (would be nice to include whether it was achieved or not - I would suspect not). But would also be nice to have the current goals. Zodon (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Found the relevant spot on the Healthy People web site. Maternal, Infant, and Child Health. Goal MICH-10 Updated the article. Zodon (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. Cnovoa, I will change the organization a bit. I agree that moving "Contributing factors" should be moved.

Zodon, thank you for the link. It is very relevant and informational. Allyssa.abacan (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

I thought this article was really well-written and organized overall! You do a good job of presenting the issue and including relevant factors and important disparities. My comments are minor. First, when you write "its equal adoption throughout the country," I would clarify that you're referencing the adoption of prenatal care. Second, I would like to see some expansion on the last sentence in the "Minorities' access" subsection. What specifically about doctor interactions influences how minority women view prenatal care? Finally, I would include a "See Also" section at the end of your article, especially since you are linking to so many articles within your article. kebarnes91 (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! Allyssa.abacan (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

History of prenatal care

Would it be possible to add a section on the history of prenatal care? I'm very interested in the topic of birth, including the history of how pregnancy and birth have been understood and handled over the years. It would be helpful to see some kind of discussion of how the understanding of proper prenatal care has evolved, like, for example, how many doctors used to advise women not to gain much weight and to have small babies, how X-raying pregnant women was once normal procedure, and when we began to see a shift towards patients who wanted to be more actively involved in making their own decisions about various aspects of pregnancy instead of unquestioningly assuming "doctor knows best." ChipmunkSviatko (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)