Talk:Diffuse infantile fibromatosis

Article categorization
This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by SMiry (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Peer Review from Group #4
Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group's edits definitely improved the quality of the article from what they started out with initially. There are clear sections that very similarly follow the Wikipedia's guiding framework. Of note, I do think there could be improvement with the introductory sentence of the article so that it clearly describes the article's topic in a little bit more detail. Perhaps somehow combining the first and second sentences into one detailed and complex first sentence would improve the quality of the introductory sentence. Other than that, the content that was added to the article was very relevant to the topic that was assigned. SMiry (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The group did a great job in differentiating between the two types of infantile fibromatosis tumors in the classification section and described them in a way that an average person would understand without using heavy medical terminology. The group added sections like "Epidemiology", "History", and "Research direction" which I think added to the quality of the article and bring a different perspective to the condition other than a clinical aspect. Hsahota (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The group's edits have improved the article by providing substance. An area that needs some work is the lead or intro section which is very short and does not summarize or reflect the updated/added information in the other sections. While causes and clinical characteristics are touched on, the diagnosis, treatment and management, and outcomes sections are not touched on. I think the group has some missed opportunities to add links to other wiki pages to clarify some terminology as well such as desmoid tumor, autosomal traits, infantile myofibromatosis, and others. There is quite a bit of more complicated medical terminology that would likely be helpful if explained or simplified if possible, or add a wiki link to an explanatory page. Also, the signs and symptoms section is quite a big paragraph which may be best split up for easier reading. Slosea (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the material written in the article is done so using neutral language and utilizes sources that are current (especially all are within the last decade) and come from reliable, published sources. While the article tends to avoid medical jargon, an editing suggestion I would make would be to simplify the language further, especially in the introduction, where even someone with medical knowledge like myself would have a hard time following along with the contents of the article. Likewise, they do use words such as "patients" which should be change to non-medical denominations such as "people." Mhassan1738 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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

After taking a look at the group's proposed edits, it seems like they have met all their goals! Each proposed edit has clearly been outlined and there is a substantial amount of data written in each section. SMiry (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The textual content of the article has heavily improved. However, I think images can be added to help visualize the content - maybe a picture or scan of the types of tumors. Additionally, hyperlinking medical terminology to the affiliated Wikipedia article would be helpful. Hsahota (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The group succeeded in added information in the 12 sections they had proposed to, each with its own section header. While some sections are much briefer than others and could possibly be combined (diagnosis+screening or treatment/management+outcomes) each had relevant and useful information provided. The article now provided a much more detailed explanation of the condition.Slosea (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they met each of their 12 goals that they set out to achieve. Each goals was essentially to add information and to improve on the corresponding sections and they expanded on each one with additional information. Mhassan1738 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The current article appears to reflect a neutral point of view with many sections to ensure all facets of the condition are discussed. However, the editors should be careful of the use of terminology such as "patients".Slosea (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3B: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The claims made throughout the article are cited with verifiable cited secondary student and are freely available. I went through the hyperlinks provided in the resources sections to make sure that the sources are readily available. Hsahota (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3C: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Yes, the article follows the proper syntax (or "manual of style") in that citations are made after the ending of sentences, proper tense is used, and language is kept neutral for the most part. That being said, they do use the word "patients" multiple times and it is worth noting that this should be changed to less-medically focused language such as "people." Mhassan1738 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Yes, the edits reflect diversity, equity and inclusion in any places that is relevant. This group used word's like "individuals" which is inclusive of everybody rather than using exclusive terms. SMiry (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)