Talk:Supernumerary nipples–uropathies–Becker's nevus syndrome

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2010 (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): Lcheng9000, Drmudawar, ZZhang031, Rnguyen4 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: R.ibrahim.2.

— Assignment last updated by R.ibrahim.2 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 27 proposed edits

• Add signs and symptoms section
• Add causes section
• Add diagnosis section
• Add treatment section
• Add images to article

Lcheng9000 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Few secondary sources are available on this topic at this time. Most textbooks cite the same article regarding the claim that Becker's nevus is associated with urogenital abnormalities; however, this article was largely unavailable in our search. Therefore, other primary sources will be used. Future editors may wish to improve this article with better sources as they become available. Lcheng9000 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer Reviews from Group 26

Person A Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] Yes, this article is thorough and well written. The lead, although not brief, provides an appropriate introduction to the topic and includes relevant connecting hyperlinks. The content throughout the article is relevant to the topic and is referenced appropriately. The images are a good addition but I believe they should be cited in the caption. The article is well organized although I think the sections could be switched for optimizing the flow. I'd put signs and symptoms first and clinical reports last.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Yes, all the group's proposed edits were added to the article. I'm not sure how the article looked before this group started their edits, but I can't think of anything else that should be added to this article without getting off topic. This article is written at a level which high school students may not completely understand, but this topic is complex so it may be difficult to simplify further. My suggestion is to define any biological terms that a high schooler may not understand, such as ectodermal in the "Causes" section.

Question 3A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain] Yes this submission reflects a neutral point of view as there really isn't a side to take here. The article discusses the controversial associations between the presented abnormalities and used neutral language to discuss the sources, not pushing one side or another.

R.ibrahim.2 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! We reorganized the sections and added a classification to help improve the organization and reduce the size of the introduction. We will also add more definitions or wikilinks for difficult to understand terms. However, for the images, since we got it off of wiki commons, clicking the image actually already provides the source. The images are not from any of the references we pulled, but rather just from a wiki commons search. Rnguyen4 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person B

Question 1: Do the group’s edit substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? - Yes, the edit of group 27 did improve the article. The lead includes an introductory sentence clearly describe the general topic of the articles. In my opinion the lead, it is not brief, but it is concisely describes the information that are critical to the audience.

Question 2:Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement - Yes, the lead part contains all the information which will be further discussion in content of the articles with a clear structure and balanced coverage and neutral content and reliable sources.

Question 3: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? - There were some secondary sources, but they also used the primary sources as case reports due to the limitation of information on this disease condition. I was logging under UCSF’s Pulse secure so I did have access to all the resources, but I don’t know for an individual who doesn’t have access to any institution connection whether they will have access to the cited sources or not. Xpham (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. We will try to condense our lead section. Due to limited available secondary sources for this condition, we did use primary sources. Our articles are mainly based on PubMed, so individuals without institution connections can register an account on PubMed via their email to read the articles. ZZhang031 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person C

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, there is a lot of information that is well written and understandable. There are a lot of hyperlinks on words that may not be commonly known, allowing the reader to click them and further research on that particular topic. The introductory paragraph was long and in depth. It could've been edited to be more brief or moved to its own section in the table of contents to allow the reader to read more in-depth, if they were interested.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, there was a lot of sections added such as the clinical studies and case reports, signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and treatment. There were even subsections for the diagnosis. There are a lot of credible sources added allowing readers to refer to.

Question 3c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? Yes, the article's language used a good amount of lay language, making it easy for the reader to understand. The style was consistent throughout the article. The organization of each section was in a sensible order. There were a lot of hyperlinks in the beginning for words that were not commonly known, but that consistency was lost in the later sections. Laurathuynh (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! The lead section has been shortened thanks to my group mates. I will look through the article and add hyperlinks to any technical terms that have not been well defined in the article. Lcheng9000 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Person D

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

Yes, the contributions made by the group substantially add to the article's completeness. The lead is long and it does begin to cover what the topic is in detail, some of which may be moved to other sections. The information added thought the article is very well-written and uses a number of different references and hyperlinking to relevant pages. The urinary system evaluation section does seem out of place, as it doesn't directly include its relation to epidermal nevus/Becker's syndromes, so some clarity there might help.

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

Yes. The group did a good job elaborating on all the necessary sections that are typically seen on a medically related wiki article. Each section was well-written and included sufficient information to leave the reader satisfied. Some of the additions, however, felt like it would be too complex for someone who does not have a medical education background- signs and symptoms + treatment sections. Some more explanation in layman's terms would be appropriate.

Question 3D. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

The language used by the editors supports DEI principles that we learned about. They did not use any language that intentionally impedes any of these themes- they included information and language to reflect that this condition affects both males and females. Maybe consider adding another line to treatment to drive home this point and how it might differ b/w males and females. Dnguyen15 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC) David Nguyen 08/01/22

Thank you for your suggestions. We edited the leads to make it more concise and moved the detailed studies onto the clinical reports and studies header at the bottom. Since SNUB syndrome encompasses pathologies in urinary system, we believe it is appropriate because the uropathies component in SNUB syndrome are only detected in urinary system evaluation.

We will edit the medical terms on the treatment section to make it easier to read and comprehend using layman's terms.

In terms of treatment for genders, they are the same and that is the reason why we decided not to convey a difference or comment on them.

Thank you for your comprehensive review. Drmudawar (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference Review

Lcheng9000 reviewed #1-9; Rnguyen4 reviewed #10-18, ZZhang031 reviewed #19-27, Drmudawar reviewed #28-36

No references from predatory publishers were identified

References 34 & 36 were duplicates, callouts were consolidated to refer to reference 34 Reference 6 also had a duplicate which was removed a few days ago, callouts refer to reference 6 Lcheng9000 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)