Talk:Copenhagen disease

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): D. Doan, A.Chhen01, M.DuranUCSF, A.Kumar, UCSF. Peer reviewers: SMohebbi95, Cpham3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2020, Group 11 Goals & Proposed Edits

Our goals for this article include:

• Enhance description of Copenhagen disease in the introductory paragraph
• Add images to this article
• Add Clinical Presentations section with Signs and Symptoms
• Add Diagnosis section
• Add Clinical Presentations section
• Add examples of case studies of patients with Copenhagen disease
• Add Treatment and Management section

Not many secondary sources are available at this time. Primary literature and other sources will be used. Future editors may improve this article with better sources as they become available. D. Doan (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Group 11. I suggest revising some of the phrasing consistent with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_guide_for_medical_editors, which suggests avoiding 'the word "patients" or "cases" when describing those who have a medical condition.' Nice to see progress on this article. Health policy (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by group 12

The groups' edits do substantially improve the article. The article consisted of only 2 sentences and 1 reference before. It now contains 6 sections and 11 references. Although they did not complete their goal of adding images, they did complete their other goals of adding in sections like clinical presentation, diagnosis, examples of case studies and more that they did not plan on originally adding like prognosis. The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. Most of the information written is from a factual and scientific point of view like the signs and symptoms, treatment, etc. The only section that can potentially be biased is the clinical studies section, but the authors state that there is not many secondary sources available due to the rarity of the disease. SMohebbi95 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated by my peers, the group did improve the article tremendously, especially considering it was built from the ground up of having no information at all to what it is now. When looking at the sources, I found that the group used secondary sources that could verify the information, and most were easy to access. I believe there were a few that weren't free to access (or I just had trouble accessing), but I'd say the group did a great job of finding sources for this article, especially considering how hard it is to find information on this topic.

Jseibel93 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this group does not use any kind of first or second person perspective and addresses the individuals with the condition as “patients”. The one of the page is also neutral, with no sentiment of the disease. References used also met the reference criteria, despite being primary sources. The group mentioned there is a lack of secondary sources due to the rarity of the disease and is stated within the Talk page. The group was able to vastly expand on their page by addition of the background, clinical presentation, diagnosis, case studies, and the treatment/management section. Before, the page only consisted of about 4 references with no sections.

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

The group stated that one of their primary goals was to add pictures, but due to copyright they decided not to use any photos. Upon looking at a study, there was no plagiarism present involved; everything was paraphrased from the studies/references. Cpham3 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The groups’ edits greatly improve the article. Prior to the groups’ edits, the article consisted of only a few sentences and one single reference. This group made outstanding contributions to the article by adding new sections to this Stub-class article. Prior to the edits, the article only had a very basic description about the topic that provided very little to no meaningful content but now it is a very informative article written in lay language that is easy to read. The article has a neutral point of view and does not use first or second person perspective. Although not all goals have been met due to a lack of secondary sources and copyright issues, the article has been improved substantially.

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… The edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. More sections were added (clinical presentation, clinical studies, diagnosis, treatment and management) to provide a broader view of the disease. Great table of signs and symptoms that is easy to read. Plenty of citations considering the lack of secondary sources due to the rarity of the disease. The article uses the recognized medical name rather than a lay term and is written for the general reader. The writing style is consistent with that of Wikipedia’s medical manual of style. It is written with a neutral point of view and contains material from reliable sources. The article is also written in the third person point of view rather than first or second person. Although the article contains some medical terminology that may be difficult to understand, Wikilinks were used to stay focused on the article while making it easier for the general public. If possible, a short definition could be added after a medical jargon to help those with no scientific background. Overall the edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia’s style and highly improves the article’s quality. R.Li8 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)