Talk:Lev's disease

Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clauf20 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Clauf20 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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): MLi UCSF, Jwli45, Mlequang, Mlee210 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jdlam16, JasonLPharm, Klee278, Lapanale.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations II, 2024. Goals and Proposed Edits

Our goals for this article include:

• add images
• expand on History topic
• expand on Presentation
• add new Signs and Symptoms topic under Presentation
• add new Pathophysiology topic
• add new Epidemiology topic
• add new Diagnosis topic
• add new Prevention topic
• add new Treatment and Management topic
• enhance description of disease state in introduction paragraph
• add case studies, if available

Peer reviews from Group # 16

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

The group's edit drastically improved the article by using lay language to explain the condition and adding more content about the topic. A thorough explanation of the history, pathophysiology, prevention, and case studies was added to the article. The article also explained the differences between how electrocardiograms and vectorcardiograms measure the heart's electrical signals. The lead section was concise and had a clear summary of what the article was going to be about. In addition, the group added more reliable resources to back up the information provided.

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

The group achieved most of their overall goals for improvement. They added a lot of information about the history, signs and symptoms, pathophysiology, prevention, treatment and management, and case studies. The group also did well with explaining what Lev's disease is. They have not added to the epidemiology and diagnosis section yet.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Person C answers: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]

Yes, the article meets the Wikipedia guidelines and formatting of Wikipedia's manual of style. The article has a well-written and concise summary in the lead section. The article has an image with a description that is aligned to the right side and has consistent style for the section headers and information that follow its. Jdlam16 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The group's edits do substantially improve the article per the guiding framework. For the history and pathophysiology sections of the article, the sections are well-detailed and is relatively easy to interpret. The summary also gets to the point in describing Lev's disease.

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

The group was able to achieve most of its goals by expanding on the history topic and adding the new pathophysiology section. However, there is room to add more as some of the sections like presentation, epidemiology, and the treatment & management can be expanded upon to make the article more complete and concise.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Person D question: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

The article does meet Wikipedia guidelines by being concise in stating the facts in the section. The article does make use of language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion especially when referring to patients with a disease, not a diseased patient. Also making use of gender-neutral terminology aids in the use of inclusive language. JasonLPharm (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Person A

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

The group’s edits have significantly improved the original article by adding in appropriate citations and information. To note, they have successfully added a comprehensive history section and have also added detailed information on pathophysiology, prevention, signs and symptoms, and associated conditions, despite the limited availability of published data and literature on some sections as stated in the article. One minor suggestion is to make improvements on the epidemiology section of the article, expanding upon some statistical data associated with Lev’s disease if there is any more data that the team can find than what is already discussed.

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

The group’s edits have achieved many of the goals for improvement: the article includes appropriate sources, all the content is relevant to the topic, and it maintains a neutral viewpoint. One suggestion is to add some pictures in for later sections of the article, if possible. There is also a reference listed twice; author Schott for references 1 and 22, which should be corrected.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view and presents the information and facts in an objective tone. Throughout the article, it does not include any biased language and maintains a balanced perspective of the subject. Each piece of information is supported by reliable sources, further reinforcing the article’s neutrality. (7/30) Klee278 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)