Talk:Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MicHuynh, Jchhen, Saravo1, Ayang12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: IsabelleTNguyen.

— Assignment last updated by IsabelleTNguyen (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group proposed edits

Our goals for this article includes:

revise prognosis section MicHuynh (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

diagnosis and management Ayang12 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

-what increases/decreases mortality risk

-Certain Risk Factors Saravo1 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

add images/media of condition and cells Jchhen (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

define medical jargon and rephrase in lay language. MicHuynh (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

define Rhabdomyosarcoma, add more information such as treatment, life expectancy, mortality, link wikipedia oncogene/define oncogene, where does this disease most commonly occur Jchhen (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

=== Edits to the "Prognosis" Section ===

planning on adding: In a 2020 case study of 464 adolescents aged 0-19 years diagnosed with RMS between 1988 to 2016, it was found that children who were diagnosed between ages 5-9 years had the most promising prognosis. The wording is very long, I was wondering if there's a better way to phrase this. MicHuynh (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

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

Yes, the group's edits have substantially improved the article by adding in relevant sections, references, and content that provides the reader in-depth context into the disease state. As individuals with scientific/healthcare backgrounds, we did find that the article had excessive scientific jargon that may be difficult to understand for the general public. We recommend Wiki-linking, explaining the jargon, or removing the jargon and simplifying the text to help readers follow the content. More focus on the article structure may also help readers follow the content more easily; it would benefit the article to add more sub-sections such as Pathophysiology (under Classifications) and clearly distinguish between adult vs. pediatric prognosis, diagnosis, etc., especially since you cite studies for specific populations in your sections.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group succeeded at revising the prognosis and diagnosis and management sections and adding in risk factors. Images should still be added to help illustrate the condition. The group should work on defining the scientific jargon and making the text more readable for the general population, as mentioned in the previous comment. Amelialao (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC) IsabelleTNguyen (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Sanakhateeb (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Whyiseveryusernameinusealready (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the feedback and I definitely agree with it all! We will definitely do more wiki-linking and/or explaining jargon as some of the term can be difficult to understand for the general public and will work on a more organized structure to split up some of the sub headings/topics. Jchhen (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3a. Does the draft reflect a neutral point of view? Yes, the article does reflect a normal point of view because it leans heavily on the scientific nature of the disease. The article does not recommend a specific treatment or have language that sways the audience’s perspective.IsabelleTNguyen (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3b.Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes, the secondary sources that they included are freely available. However, there seems to be more primary sources rather than secondary sources. The group should also consider removing the some of the studies that they included. For example, under the prognosis section. It seems to complicated for a general audience to read and understand. Sanakhateeb (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes the edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. However, the editors can add more sub-headings to help guide the readers through each headings. For example, under treatments, the editors can add in different types of treatments for different populations. Whyiseveryusernameinusealready (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

The group should add a section on epidemiology to illustrate global prevalence/incidence as there are sources that mention differences in incidence in different populations. In addition, remember to be careful with inclusive wording; instead of saying "older age of mother", you may want to say "older age of birth parent". Amelialao (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Reference Review Foundations II 2022

The references in the article was reviewed and assessed by:

@Jchhen ref #1-10, @Ayang12 ref #11-21, @MicHuynh ref #22-32, @Saravo1 ref #33-43 MicHuynh (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

references 10 and 11 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 10, 8 of the 11 references were reformatted Jchhen (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

references 15, 21, and 25 were duplicates; we consolidated this reference to be reference 15. 3 changes were made. MicHuynh (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

references 17 and 20 were duplicates; we consolidated both to reference 17 Ayang12 (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)