Talk:Persistent fetal circulation

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): Vomori, Jparizher, Lreyess. Peer reviewers: M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of abbreviation (PPHN) without definition

So the abbreviation "PPHN" is used without a definition... It should stand for Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn 182.255.99.214 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Types of PPHN

I also found that PPHN can be classified as acute (reversible and irreversible) and chronic. I am wondering if this section should be changed to classify PPHN as acute or chronic, rather than the types that are already listed there since those seem to be describing the underlying etiology of the disease, rather than the different types. Jparizher (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Group 32 Peer Review

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

Yes, the group substantially improved the article by including more information on classification, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and epidemiology. The guiding framework states the goal of "cleaning up" the article. The addition of high-quality information from reputable sources improves this article and the formatting improves the presentation.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

It is unclear if the group achieved its own goals. Yes, the guiding framework has been achieved, but their own specific goals have not been made clear.

• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The article reflects a neutral point of view. The information present doesn't appear to reflect an agenda of any type. The information presented is matter-of-fact and doesn't indicate the pushing of one-sided thought.

M. Tam, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? I find that this group's edits have substantially improved the article “Persistent Fetal Circulation”. Section of the article such as sections “Pathophysiology”, “Types/Classification”, “Diagnosis”, “Treatment”, “Epidemiology”, and “Complications” were all written and published by this group. The content of each section is thoroughly cited as well- they are responsible for . The content subheaders also match the Wiki Medicine content guidelines as well. The specific project header labeled this project for “cleanup” which entails page layout, spelling, grammar, tone, and source formatting improvements. With nearly the entire article being newly written, I believe the formatting is easy to follow. A good example would be looking at the “Pathophysiology” section which has bolded bullet points for each possible sub condition that has mirrored formatting in referring to prognosis and outcome. Article utilizes bullet points and bolded subheaders to make identifying information easy.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

This group’s “Talk” page, unfortunately, does not include their list of overall goals for improvement- however, the article is well written and well organized. The additional content subheaders are well organized and contain condensed information. The language utilized is in some areas difficult to understand for the layperson. If the goal was to create an accurate and easily accessible snapshot of persistent fetal circulation, then I believe their goals were met for this article. Certain areas could be improved for understanding by non-medical professionals.

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

Currently there is no sign of plagiarism or copyright violation. The group has utilized over ten different sources to cite their information.

WilsonVuongUCSFPharmDStud (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Yes, the group did an excellent job updating the article with pertinent information. They have provided information on pathophysiology, treatment, classifications, complications, and epidemiology. Overall this wikipedia article has vastly been improved by Group 31.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The goals for improvement were not included in the talk page, however, looking at the previous version of the article before Group 31 started editing, they have made a great improvement on the article.

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

Overall the edits are formatted consistently with Wikipedia's manual of style, and have included sections that pertain to the condition. However, there are a few instances where lay language can be used so the article is not written for healthcare professionals in mind.

OSandoval Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposals for edits

Due to the one article restriction, we changed the article we were working on as it had the least amount of information on it. With this last minute change, we had proposals submitted for all articles besides this one. List of proposed edits:

• Fix introduction paragraph to provide clear, concise information what persistent fetal circulation is
• Elaborate on treatment section
• Add details to diagnostic section and any tools/tests used for diagonsis
• Create complications section
• Provide more information in epidemiology section
• Add photos/tables

Jparizher (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)