Talk:Glomerulation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): B. Chow, UCSF, BHuynh8, Cchung725, BDeLosReyes1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Sshen18, K10vea, A.M. Tatarian, Jarango22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 10 proposed edits

This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale, so more information can be added to improve the article. Sections can be added to cover diagnosis, causes, risk factors, presentation, pictures, and more. It also may be helpful to address the association of glomerulation with interstitial cystitis (IC). In addition, there are no references/citations currently listed, so this section should be updated. K10vea (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group 6 proposed edits

Our goals for this article is to discuss the following topics

Expand on existing sections

- Presentation 
- Relation to Interstitial Cystitis 
- Treatment
  - Surgery? 
  - Long Term Management 
- References 

Sections to Add

- Diagnosis 
- Pathophysiology 
- Prognosis 
- Risk Factors 
- Pictures

BHuynh8 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Edits by 2021 Foundations II Group 6

Foundations II 2021 Group 26 Peer Review

PART 1

Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?

• Yes, the group's edits added many reliable sources that are secondary sources such as review articles and diagnostic criteria guidelines. The group added the prognosis section which is an important piece of information about glomerulation. I also saw that the group added relevant sources for phrases that had sources missing, which added to the validity of the wikipedia article. The lead section is also a good summary that contains condensed information about the content of the subsequent sections. I think the article could be further improved by adding connecting words to make the article flow easier, and also add relevant pictures and links between wikipedia articles to help the readers read and understand glomerulation. So.Kim, future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Group 6 did a great job adding secondary literature sources such as systematic-review and meta-analysis studies. The group added all information and edits that was mentioned in their edit proposal. For example, the prognosis section.This section is important for better understanding glomerulation. The introduction is a good summary of the whole writing. The lead section could be improved by adding more detailed summarized information on each section so the reader can get a better idea of what they are going to read. Some vocabularies could be linked to the definitions for better understanding of the reader. --S. Baradaran Nakhjavani (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)s.baradaran nakhjavani
• yes, the group has substantially improved the article as indicated in their goal. Not only did they improve the content with more detailed information about glomerulation, but the wiki page is also extremely well written too. The article is well-organized in a sensible order. The introduction paragraph gave a good overview of what the entire page is about, and I especially like the section where the page mentioned glomerulation in relation to other broader condition that is more well known. One thing I found to be a bit difficult from a reader's perspective is that each section has many terms that may not be easily understood by people without a medical background. even as a pharmacy student, I still have to google several terms to have a better understanding of the material written. I would suggest to summarized using lay language in the future for an easier read for the readers. Fu,Sherry (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• The group added many sections to improve the article, however there are many grammatical errors that still need to be corrected. The article uses appropriate scientific language, excluding "you" and "patient," and presenting information in a professional, academic manner. I would suggest explaining what "hydrodistention procedure" is since there's no link to another wiki page describing that term. According to the wikipedia guidelines for writing medicine-related articles, it states "Sources should be used to make verifiable statements, but they should not be discussed by themselves in an article." I believe there are some sections that do this such as "relation to interstitial cystitis." Another note, spell out QOL rather than just say QOL under "treatment." Overall good job on relaying/communicating information and using relevant guidelines that are available! Stephwong23 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

• Yes, the group were able to meet some of their goals, including adding further information and additional sources to the presentation section, expanding upon the relation to interstitial cystitis section, and adding missing references for the statements that needed references. In addition, the group was able to add the pathophysiology section and prognosis section. Diagnosis, pictures and risk factors are sections that still need to be added. Nevertheless, the group did a great job improving the article overall. So.Kim, future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• The group has provided goals of improvement in a list in the talk page. The goals were all achieved. The new information that was added to the article include diagnosis, pathophysiology, prognosis, and risk factors. These subheadings can be really helpful in understanding the glomerulation topic. Also this group has expanded on other subheadings such as treatments and presentations. Expanding on these information is important since the guidelines for treatments are always changing and improving. The presentation factors also need be detailed. The references were also added by this group based on the wikipedia's format and references were secondary sources. --S. Baradaran Nakhjavani (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)s.baradaran nakhjavani
• The group met most of the goals that they set for themselves and executed the content well. I would like to maybe see some bullet points used to organized the content even more or pictures sprinkled here and there as some of the concepts are better explained with pictures. Fu,Sherry (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• The group seems to have added a substantial amount of references for supporting the article. I would suggest expanding a bit more on the risk factors section, or organizing it so that the risk factors are easier to read/find. It doesn't seem like pictures, or "diagnosis" were added like was planned in the goals. I would also suggest using sub-headers to describe the "surgery" "Long term management" sections of treatment just for organization/ease to look at the article. Stephwong23 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

PART 2

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

• Yes, the draft does not contain any persuasive language that tries to sway the reader to a conclusion. The article focuses on facts that are stemming from secondary sources and established guidelines, like the NIDDK Diagnostic Criteria for interstitial cystitis, which is associated with glomerulation. Another example of the neutral voice is in the section in pathophysiology where the article describes the unknown, debated nature of glomerulations. The article presents the multiple viewpoints about the pathophysiology of glomerulations without weight to any of these viewpoints. So.Kim, future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

• the references are cited correctly however I do see many blog posts that incorporate condensed information written by healthcare professionals on the topic that is easily accessible to everyone. I also found that a lot of the resources cited are secondary resources that are open access. the primary resources cited have limited access. Fu,Sherry (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

• The edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style. for example the citations follow the format that is suggested by wikipedia. The information that is used comes from secondary sources. The edits also include important information about the topic with a neutral tone. Furthermore, the headings, subheadings and body informations are formatted appropriately for a better organization. The subheadings are placed in such order that the article has an easy flow as a whole. --S. Baradaran Nakhjavani (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)s.baradaran nakhjavani

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

• Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? - Yes, there is no language showing exclusion, precisely because there is no information regarding statistics or which age groups or races or gender or other categories of people seem to experience glomerulation or have interstitial cystitis more or less often. Language was very neutral and professional. Stephwong23 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference Review

Our group has reviewed all the references and they are now correctly formatted.

Changes#1: Reference 3 and 14 were duplicates, consolidated as reference 3.

Note: Several duplicate citations were fixed on July 27, 2021.

Changes#2: Reformatted a misplaced reference (reference #28) by incorporating it into text.

Changes#3: Removed a reference (initially reference #19)

Changes#4: Fixed publish date format for three references: references #6, #9 and #28

BDeLosReyes1 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Edits by 2021 Foundations II Group 6