Talk:Golfer's vasculitis

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M. Nguyen, UCSF, Lar.ngu.UCSF, Aerdna1001, ElizabethArdenNguyen (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rrmisra, JMonka, Dmirandajuarez, LNariyoshi.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations II: Group 21 Goals/Editing Plan

Review existing article and references; add the following sections: background, clinical presentation (symptoms), risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, case studies; add images throughout the article M. Nguyen, UCSF (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Larrisa edits: - made edits to signs and symptoms - added to risk factors and demographics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar.ngu.UCSF (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations II: Peer Review from Rrmisra, Dmirandajuarez, JMonka, LNariyoshi

Rrmisra (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Whose work are you reviewing?

[edit]

Group work by Aerdna1001, ElizabethArdenNguyen, Lar.ngu.UCSF, M. Nguyen, UCSF on the Wikipedia article: Golfer's vasculitis. Rrmisra (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Link to the draft you're reviewing

[edit]

Golfer's vasculitis (Revision date: 22:38, 29 July 2024)

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

[edit]

Golfer's vasculitis (Revision date: 22:38, 29 July 2024)

Evaluate the drafted changes - Rrmisra

[edit] Rrmisra (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? [explain]

[edit]

I believe the group's edits do substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework." The previous article only had a brief lead section with 4-5 sentences alongside one picture. The group re-wrote the lead section making it more clear to read, and understand while still keeping it concise and to the point. They successfully added a lot more content to this page as indicated by the addition of the subheadings: signs and symptoms, risk factors and demographics, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. These sections were all new improvements by the group and really elevated the quality of the article. All group members maintained a balanced, neutral tone throughout the article, making it informational and unbiased. There are now 10 references added to the article which is an improvement from before, and all are appropriately cited throughout the article. I appreciated the fact that the group added structure to the article that had been missing previously, and now the reader is able to distinguish between different subsections of the topic. The prevention and treatment section was a bit short comparatively and could be further fleshed out in terms of content if there is anything additional to include. The group did not add any new media or images which is one area of improvement that they can consider. However, the picture that they included does accurately portray Golfer's vasculitis. Overall, I think the group did a great job with improving this article as it was simply a paragraph before they went in to make their edits. The content has been increased with areas that could be expanded upon. The references are appropriate as well, but the group can try to consider utilizing more recent up-to-date sources since most are from 2005-2008, and the latest is from 2019.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

[edit]

In their plan, the group wanted to "review existing article and references; add the following sections: background, clinical presentation (symptoms), risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, case studies; add images throughout the article." I believe that the group has partially achieved its overall goals for improvement. They have added almost all of the sections they had wanted to aside from more specific case studies and images throughout the article. There could be more up-to-date case studies, references, and images/media that they could include to better support their overall article. Currently, the Gallery section is empty so they can utilize this section as well. Since this article is considered an "orphan article" with no other articles linked to it, they did a great job using the link tool to attach this page to related articles. I think they did a great job executing this Wikipedia project with a hard topic like Golfer's vasculitis. The only areas of improvement they could consider would be to further their content on specific sections, add more images/media, and include more recent case studies to better their article.

3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

[edit]

A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

The draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. It is clear after reading the article that the purpose is to inform and educate the readers about Golfer's vasculitis and no biased or opinionated language is used throughout the article. The draft submission is also very easy to read and understand with no heavy medical jargon that could make the article difficult to comprehend for most of the public. Overall, their tone was informative and neutral, thus meeting the Wikipedia guidelines. Rrmisra (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Rrmisra (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Miranda Juarez: Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes. Before this group started the edits, the article only had a paragraph. It has come a long way, the article now has multiple sections in which the editors go in depth about Golfer's vasculitis. For example, the introduction does a great job in explaining what Golfer's vasculitis is and basically how people get it. Overall, the article is informative for someone that is not familar with the condition and provides a good foundation for readers.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

The group has achieved majority of their goals. One of the goals was to expand the introduction/background and this group did a great job. I would suggest adding maybe a few sentences regarding the history about this condition, maybe who discovered it or when it started to be known? All the other subtopics were informative and easy to read.

Question 3C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]

Yes, this group made a great job in their heading names. I especially liked the flow of the article and was easy to follow. For the prevention section, it would be beneficial to add references because this would provide more validation to the information provided there. Also, the image provided is consistent with the wikipedia style.Dmirandajuarez (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review - Julia

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes, I believe the edits made by this group have led to substantial improvements in the article. The information and edits made to organize and clarify the article are relevant and up to date on the topic. The article remains unbiased in presenting the background information and as a whole is very balanced. I checked the citations, none of which are outdated or old and clearly support the newly added information in the article. All the links seem to be working. There is a good variety in new sources added to the article which contribute to the neutral aspect of this article. However, I think that the "Prevention" section of the article needs to be cited and referenced as there are none as of now. Further, I think that adding some pictures to the gallery could help in improving this article's comprehensiveness.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] I think that most of the goals have been achieved except for my points previously mentioned about adding more references (especially in the "Prevention" section) as well as adding more graphics/figures to the gallery and article as a whole which would be incredibly useful to gain more insight into the condition. I also think that "case studies" were mentioned in the plan but not touched on thoroughly in the article. Further, the "Prevention" and "Treatment" sections could benefit from including more information and sources. However, other than that, I think the group has made significant progress in their plan.

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain] So far, there is no language being used in the article that would suggest otherwise. I think something that could be useful for the future is diversifying the sources and references used in editing the article as the reference list is still currently quite short. I think something else that could be added is perhaps expanding on the etiology of the name of the condition and how it correlates with being a risk factor for this condition - is it more prevalent in older adults? Using sources that are looking at a wider demographic range, age-wise, would be a good idea. JMonka (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review - Lani

Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Yes, I believe the group's edits have improved the article as per the Guiding Framework. They have added a large amount of new information to this article that have appropriate references. The language is unbiased and uses appropriate language so more people can understand the information being presented. If possible, getting more recent studies to discuss newer information would be preferable, however, this topic has less information available.

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

This group has achieved its goals for improvement. They have made a more complete explanation of their subject, which was lacking in information previously. They have also included new references for the corresponding information.

Question 3: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

The claims were verifiable with the cited sources. Since this topic is not as well researched as others, there were some journals that required subscriptions for viewing access. On the other hand, it does allow us to look at the main research of the article through the title and abstract. LNariyoshi (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic opinion about golf and Disney park participation

This revert was justified because the edit by M. Nguyen, UCSF is pure original research and opinion, WP:OR, with an offtopic source. Please focus on discussing the medical condition. Zefr (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We are required to address diversity, equity, and inclusion for our class assignment. From a patient's point of view, especially an underserved patient, they may believe they do not fit into this diagnosis due to the colloquial names that imply a particular privileged demographic. M. Nguyen, UCSF (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia to satisfy classwork that is offtopic to a specific medical condition; see common pitfalls in the manual of style for medical articles. It is a case of WP:SYNTH to assume playing golf and visiting a theme park are related to vasculitis in only a privileged demographic. Zefr (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr and M. Nguyen, UCSF: I have reached out to the course instructor (either Health policy or Health Economics and Policy) as well as the WikiEd supervisor (Ian (WikiEd)) regarding the need for more supervision of the edits at this article. I suspect the other articles of focus in this course are being edited with equal problems. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)