Talk:Gestational choriocarcinoma

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Rnguyen4 (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 12 proposed edits
One of our proposed changes for the article is to edit the order and layout of the article to include the sections laid out in WP:MEDMOS. We also want to expand each of the sections and provide more information found through literature and reliable sources, including adding a section on risk factors for this condition. To further improve on the current content in the article, we want to incorporate more lay language. We also want to add images relating to the condition.

Jkvu25 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

==

Good job everyone! I thought your article was very informative.

Jxamz (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Group 11 Peer Review Feedback
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * lead section is easy to understand - somewhat, I think there are a lot of scientific terms, if you can add more layman terms or explain what the scientific terms mean. For example, what is hCG?
 * Clear structure - Yes, maybe you can add subheaders in each heading so it doesn’t look like one huge paragraph. For example, adding subheaders for the guidelines
 * Balanced coverage - yes, all sections have a lot of info
 * Neutral content - yes
 * Reliable sources - yes

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * Yes, they added lots of information compared to the 2021 version

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? S.Li, UCSF (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don’t feel persuaded about anything after reading the article. The language used in the article is not arguing for any point of view and is informational.

1. The lead briefly summarizes the article, which includes both treatment and prognosis. The introductory sentence is worded well and describes the topic of the article, however, there are some words like "trophoblast" that need to be defined or explained in lay language for viewers. The lead includes a description of some of the sections. The contents added are relevant to the article and talk mainly about the topic. Each paragraph is relevant to the section as well. I recommend adding a "signs and symptoms" section, as this would add more information regarding the article. The article has a lot of information and is neutral. Most of the references are from the past 10 years, but some are dated back to 2003. I appreciate the table and graphs that are added to explain the topics. I think that overall, the paragraphs are relevant to the topic, there are some words that would require more explanation to make it easier for viewers to understand.

2. I believe that the group achieved its overall goals for improvement. There are just some things that can be added. This includes defining more terms that may be hard for some viewers to understand. Adding a few more sections (if relevant to the topic) like "signs and symptoms" and/or "risk factors". Otherwise, I believe that the information within the article is neutral and important to fully understand the topic.

3. (B) The contents of the article are well cited. The sites are freely available and are from secondary sources. Most of the articles cited are from the past 10 years, but there are some that go beyond that. Most are also from PubMed and are verifiable. Mtayag (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot on your constructive feedback. I agree that adding "signs and symptoms" and "risk factors" would make the article look more integrated. Our team is planning to work on that. In terms of the references date, as this condition is a rare disease and also because of advancement in medical technologies, early signs and symptoms can be detected to prevent further progression, there wasn't much paper that explicitly review on this condition could be found. But we are still working on polishing the article. Thanks again on your suggestions. Mchen2022 (talk) 20:32, 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 substantially improved the articles based on the "Guiding framework". The lead is very clear and concise and outlines the content throughout the page with a strong lead sentence. One possible improvement is to either briefly explain terms or provide links to other pages. The content in the article uses update resources and covers what is relevant towards the disease. There is no material that does not belong in the content. The article does not address historically underrepresented populations and topics. Content is neutral and not biased. Sources used are diverse and most were recently published. The content accurately represents information from those sources. Links to sources are working and very few sources. The group has added tables to help present its content.

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

The article has come a long way since the group as started editing. A significant amount of content has been added in a concise and organized way. The group does an excellent job at explaining the disease and summarizing up to date guidelines on diagnosis and treatment. Some improvements that can be made are to explaining or link more more terms throughout the article, although the group has done a good job of this for several terms already. Overall, the group has significantly improved the article.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Yes, this group's edits are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The page is formatted properly with appropriate headings and sections. Content is presented in concise and succinct manners that are very informative. Person D answers: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Awong21 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 12 References Review
(a) Our group has reviewed all the references and that they are now correctly formatted. *Note that as of Aug 4, all references dates were all formatted in years; months and days were removed.

(b) No references were identified as predatory journals. Reference 15 was originally an article on MedLine and is now replaced by another journal article.

(c) Prior to Aug 4, there were duplicated references. Wiki editors have already consolidated the references. No references needed to be consolidated on Aug 4.

SKXu (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)