Talk:Lip licker's dermatitis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J. Ahn, student, Jwang3123, Jpobre, JosephineNgo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2021 Group 15 proposed edits
1. create or expand organization to this article: Prevention, epidemiology (incidence, prevalence, age, etc.), special populations. Add more information on existing sections. – Prevalence: places of prevalence, climates of prevalence, risk factorsJpobre (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC) 2. Update references to see if they are appropriate (12 references currently = 3 references / person) & add new references (6 references/person). 3. Improve the writing of article JosephineNgo (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?
 * Yes, the group added more sections (etiology and diagnosis) which makes the article more organized. On top of that, I noticed the group citing their sources from various different places and primarily using secondary sources. They also made substantial grammar fixes. Kbarrett7 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the group's edits have improved the article. Looks like they added sections like etiology, cleaned up the formatting, added more citations, and added to previously existing sections. A few duplicate sources, but still plenty of unique secondary sources. Some of the wording could be improved, for example, this sentence in etiology: "In addition to excessive dryness to the protective oily part of the lips at the surface, skin barrier is damaged with the increased skin permeability.", was a little difficult to understand, but it also gets the point across so it's not a huge deal. M. Louie, UCSF (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goal for improvement?
 * Yes, I believe they have. Overall, the article has a lot more information with various different sections (group added etiology and diagnosis section). Additionally, each section is well written and cites from various different source. I also noticed that the group made various grammar changes/fixes which definitely helps the article overall. One minor improvement I would suggest is adding more statistics to the prevalence section (if there are any). The group could also make an epidemiology section and have prevalence, incidence, risk factors, etc. to clean up the organization of that part. Kbarrett7 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only goal that, in my opinion, still needs some work on is the third goal, improve the writing of the article. For example, the section that explains the "causes" has a subsection named "etiology," which I believe is unnecessary. Also, this article can benefit from a better choice of words: "...are some daily things to do that will make a difference." "Observation of patient's habitual behavior can..."M. Salari, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The group's goal was to add prevention, epidemiology, special populations and adding evidence to existing sections. They added the new sections and added details to the existing sections, so I'd say they achieved their goal. M. Louie, UCSF (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

'''Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)'''
 * Overall, the edits the group made reflect a neutral point of view. However, there's some areas that could use some touching up. For example, the last sentence in the special populations section "...not criticizing them" doesn't flow in my opinion and has a little bit of an emotional tone to it. I would recommend rearranging that sentence to make it flow better and keep a neutral point of view. Kbarrett7 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style?
 * They are mostly consistent. As I mentioned above, the article can benefit from some minor edits such as removing the subsection "etiology" and using the word people instead of patient. M. Salari, Future UCSF PharmD (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the sections are both present and in order with the manual of style for disease/conditions. M. Louie, UCSF (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Final Edits to References
JosephineNgo (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Reviewed #1-10, references #1 and #2 were reformatted and source date changed to include only the year. 2 references were found to be duplicated and consolidated to reflect only one unique reference. Reviewed 11-21. All sources were formatted correctly Jwang3123 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Reviewed 22-29, edited the format of date, added authors' names to reference #1, #25, #27 and deleted one unreliable source. J. Ahn, student (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Reviewed 31-41. All sources were formatted correctly and appropriate non-primary sources. Jpobre (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)