Talk:Coma blister

Article categorization
This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Alukyo1 (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 1 proposed edits
This article should include etiology of a coma blister, images, diagnosis, as well as if there are any available treatment(s) and monitoring parameter(s). Aroderos (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review from Group 31
1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "guiding framework?"

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

3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

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

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

c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?

Rdoan, ucsf (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the group was able to greatly contribute to the contents and structure of the article. They added appropriate sections and also included appropriate sub-headings to better organize their information. I think the flow and presentation of the date is also very easy to follow along and read. There is sufficient depth for me to get a sense of the topic.
 * The group has added all the sections and headings that they said they intended to do. The only thing they could optionally add is an image, though it is understandably difficult to find a copyright free image of this specific indication.
 * c. Yes, it seems like all the edits are properly formatted and consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The titles are clear and concise, there is appropriate punctuation, and there seems to be proper citations attached to the written content too. There have been no random quoting of the cited sources and the information is presented in a logical format that is easy to read.
 * Rdoan, ucsf (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * Yes, the group's edits have established a clear structure, with etiology leading into diagnoses and treatment and management. The lead in paragraph also provides a clear overarching look at the topic, providing information on what coma blisters are and how they form as well as the conditions and populations they are commonly associated with. There is balanced coverage of the material, as the clinical cases presented also covers different populations. The article is written in a neutral tone, with no bias towards any singular source or viewpoint. The section on differential diagnoses helps clarify the difference between coma blisters from other similar blisters.
 * 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * Yes, their goals were to add information about diagnosis, etiology, and treatments. These sections and topics are expanded on in the article and provide a good insight of coma blisters. The only remaining goal is to add an image of a coma blister.
 * 3b. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?  Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
 * Yes, their claims are cited and verifiable with well-established sources. A majority of their claims are supported by secondary sources. Their clinical cases have primary sources, which is expected.
 * -Mvtran (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "guiding framework?"
 * Yes, this group's article is well structured, clearly organized, and easy to follow. The lead paragraph concisely summarizes the rest of the information in the article. The body text contains relevant sections and relevant content within those sections. The article is all well-balanced in terms of how much information each section contains. There is no section that contains too much or too little information compared to the others.
 * 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * Yes, the group has met almost all of their goals. The last goal to be met would involve adding an image or some sort of media. Furthermore, monitoring parameters can also still be added if there are any studies or guidelines that cover them. If the group is looking to expand upon the article more and find more goals, epidemiology/incidence and prognosis sections could be added but the article is also sufficient without them.
 * 3. a. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
 * Yes, the language used in this article does not appear to include any bias towards one point of view. This group has used language that is geared toward explanation of this condition rather than expressing opinions about the information. There is no language that contains a positive or negative valence.
 * E.Espina.UCSF (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference Check
Our group as a whole have reviewed all the references. Ftran (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)