Talk:Streptococcal intertrigo

Foundations II 2022 Group 25 Proposed Changes

Convert existing text into lay language, add images of the disease state, create headers for signs and symptoms, cause, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, case studies and reports. Not many secondary sources are available at this time. Primary literature and other sources will be used. Future editors may improve this article when better sources are available.Wxia1 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfafarad (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 

Peer Review

Kmadan: 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? This article contains an easy to understand lead, a clear structure (very intuitive sections), balanced coverage + neutral tone (article does not contain any opinions), and reliable sources. As far as reliable sources, the group made it clear on the talk page that there is not much secondary literature on this subject, so they have been using mostly primary literature/case reports

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? This groups goals were to convert existing text into lay language, add images of the disease state, create headers for signs and symptoms, cause, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, case studies and reports. All of these goals have been met. An image was added. lay language is used throughout, and all sections have been created.

3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? In general, yes. The only addition I would make is potentially using terms like "assigned male at birth" or "assigned female at birth" when appropriate Kmadan (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)kmadan

Danielletmunoz: 1. 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. There are clear sections for different subtopics, a neutral tone that doesn't contain any opinions on the topic, and they used credible sources for their research. The article also flowed very nicely and it made sense as a reader.

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

Yes, the group did a very good job at accomplishing the goals that they set out in the beginning of the project. There was an image which demonstrated a visual for the text that was being added, which was one of their goals. Additionally, the group used a lot of lay language which is important for the everyday user. If there was medical or scientific jargon used, there was a link to a separate Wiki article for reference.

3b. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The group was clear in their proposed plan that there were not a lot of secondary sources available for their topic, therefore a lot of them were primary literature or case reviews. Upon examining those, they were easily accessible and helpful in understanding what their discussion was about. Another thing I appreciated in terms of their references was that they turned those case reviews they found into a separate section for their article. It was a good way to incorporate their research, even though it wasn't secondary sources. Danielletmunoz (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?Wkastoun (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Yes, the edits improved the article overall. All the sections that were added included a well explanation about the disease in lay language. Wkastoun (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Wkastoun (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) There is a clear improvement in the article. The use of sections and subtopics makes it easier for the reader to follow along and understand the disease being discussed. Lay language is used too and all the medical terms are well explained. Wkastoun (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? The edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The article begins with an undivided summary of the condition. The sections are easy to read and follow. There is also a consistency between the article’s sections. Wkastoun (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Rchllbby:

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? This group's work on streptococcal intertrigo adds substantial information to learning about this condition's etiology, signs and symptoms, cause, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and even informative case studies. This is all relevant information that helped me gain deeper understanding of this skin condition. The lead section is easy to understand, as it is concise and gives a helpful overview of what's to come in the following paragraphs. There is a clear structure to how they organized the sections, starting from what the condition is, how it develops, how to look out for it, who's at risk for it, and cases of patients with it.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, this group has clearly worked hard to make great improvements to helping viewers develop an understanding and respect for streptococcal intertrigo. I found the case studies to be a nice touch, as they found three different demographics to highlight how they individually dealt with this skin condition. It is also appreciable how they included medication instructions on the best way to apply the cream to get most effective results.

3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The article is written with a neutral tone. When explaining the condition, etiology, signs and symptoms, complications, cause, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, case studies, and epidemiology, it was all done in a passive tone without action words. The categories chosen were all related to the condition and gave a neutral viewpoint of the condition. For example, it was informative when in Etiology they highlighted that streptococcal intertrigo is most commonly seen in patients with diabetes mellitus, but then gave a clear scientific reason why (due to the higher pH levels in their skin folds). The rest of the article was written in the same reasoned tone, with unbiased and accurately cited sources. Rchllbby (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Wxia1 reviewed #1-6

Corrected formatting for references 1, 2, 4, and 5. Wxia1 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wlancenc reviewed #7-12

reference 7 was incorrectly formatted and included date of access, which was promptly adjusted and removed. other references had correct formatting and did not need any adjustments. Wlancenc (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Alfafarad reviewed #13-17

Corrected date formatting for 13, 15, 16, and 17.

Removed date of access for 13, 16.

Added PMID for 17.

Alfafarad (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

R.FouladiChami reviewed #18-22

references 4 and 21 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 4

references 5 and 23 were duplicates; we consolidated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference 5 R.FouladiChami (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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): Wxia1, Alfafarad, Wlancenc, R.FouladiChami (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Snowlan (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)