Talk:Epignathus

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): J.Wong, UCSF Future Pharm.D., K.BehzadMoghadam, R. Chu, Future UCSF Pharm.D., MCheng14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
The group achieved its overall goals for improvement as it added more detailed information about the condition using reliable sources. However, our group came up with the following comments and suggestions: The draft reflects a neutral point of view without editorial bias as it describes facts about the condition from reliable and mostly easily accessible sources. Some of them were not accessible. However, most of the sources are case reports rather than review articles. I believe this is a rare disease but more review articles should be used for references. It includes too many medical or technical terms that are difficult for general public to understand or follow. Some examples are somatic cells, prognosis, mortality rate, pluripotent stem cells, etc.Y.Jung, Future UCSF Pharm.D (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the group improved the article. Though I'm not sure what the group's original goals were, the group successfully added more citations and information about this topic. They substantially added more details to each section of the article, frequently citing their sources. Though many sources were primary, I believe there were not many secondary sources that could be cited, since this condition is so rare. In addition, some sources were older than 5-10 years old, which isn't ideal (though understandable). Based on the Wikipedia's manual of style, I believe that the article could be written more for a general reader. It could include more lay language, so a non-medical audience could easily understand the content. For example, according to the manual, the first time a medical jargon is introduced, you can explain what the term is in lay language and put the actual term in parentheses after. E. Nguyen Pharmacy (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The group wrote the article in a very neutral, third-party tone which is consistent with the the guiding frameworks. Overall the article seems to have drastically improved in terms of quality, information, and length. It is written in a way that might be a little too technical for the average reader however. Also, it is not immediately apparent in the first couple of sentences that this is a condition that effects the fetus only. After reviewing the secondary sources there seems to no sign of plagiarism or copyright violation and the information was accurately rewritten. Danielak290 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article has been improved as a lot of information has been added to the article (it was extremely short before). Also, many peer reviewed sources have been added to the article, strengthening the evidence behind the article. However, the biggest problem with the edits are that they are very technical. Wikipedia is made for a general audience and I think this would be an extremely hard article to follow for someone with no prior medical or scientific training. Terms such as teratoma, oropharynx, oropharyngeal, somatic cells, differentiation, benign, mortality rate, prognosis, asphyxiation, pluripotent, germ layers and so on, are very technical. Maybe try to either explain the terms or change the terms to ones the general public would know. The sources are mostly all available to the public except sources: 7 ("Fetus in fetu or giant epignathus protruding from the mouth"), 12 ("Cervical and oral teratoma in the fetus: a systematic review of etiology, pathology, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis"), 14 (Emergency management of a congenital teratoma of the oral cavity at birth and three-year follow-up), 15 ("Prenatal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging findings of a hypovascular epignathus with a favorable prognosis"), 17 ("Neonatal oral tumors: congenital epulis and epignathus"). Also, the sources are mostly not secondary sources. Adrianagardner (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Group 17 Overall Goals for Improvement
Our group goals are to add more content and include reliable citations. All of the headings are properly formatted but there needs to be more information about the subject. Some images or graphics of the condition would also be useful. It would be good information for families with patients who have this condition; however, in terms of diagnostics, I think since it is such a rare disease, providers would need to refer to case studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCheng14 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to J.Wong, K.BehzadMoghadam, R. Chu and MCheng14 for the big improvement you made to this article. Also a big thanks to those who peer reviewed the edits. I think you did a good and vital job, checking the quality of the sources and to catch any plagiarism or copyright violation. I agree with you that the text is a bit too technical in places, without the explanations that a general reader will need to understand. Some of the technical words might be able to be replaced with simpler ones, particularly if the technical term isn't of vital importance to the article topic. Alternatively, add a short explanation in parenthesis. The explanations of some of the scanning technology is accessible to a lay reader, but possibly a little excessive for this article. I think most readers will already have some idea of what these are -- enough to understand the article -- and if they wish to learn more then they can ... ah, there aren't wikilinks to the articles. That's one of the simplest and best ways to improve the article, to link to others.

After writing new text, it can help to take a break from it and come back with fresh eyes. What do you see? Perhaps you spot some repetition or how a sentence could explain better or more simply? The lead could perhaps be a bit shorter and more concise summary of the most important points. I wonder if there is anything that could go in a History section? Do we know when the first case was ever found? Who first named it? When the first infant to survive was? These are just ideas to think about -- if the source text doesn't mention it or consider it important then neither can we.

I see the sources are generally online papers. Remember there are also these things called books! Do any relevant textbooks mention this at all?

Wrt wikilinks, in addition to few links to other articles, there are few links from other articles (click on "What links here" on the left). Are there any others that could link here? Could you add any more categories? -- Colin°Talk 15:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)