Talk:Perianal cellulitis

Article categorization
This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Insert a re-direction? Somehow?
My grandson has Streptococcal perianal disease but no combination of "perianal" or "Streptococcal" leads to this page in particular--you have to conjecture some connection between it and "cellulitis"--and then, Lord knows, this page is useless enough.

I do not know how to stick in a re-direction. Maybe somebody will be moved to do so. I suggest re-directing from "Streptococcal perianal disease," "Anal Streptococcal infection" and "Anal strep."

Useless or not, this page would serve as some kind of acknowledgement. I may try to at least add a ink to a couple of good articles, like

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001346.htm

https://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0115/p391.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHHEB3 (talk • contribs)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by S.Li, UCSF (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 17 proposed edits
Our group would like to add the following sections to help improve the article "Perianal Cellulitis":

-classification

-causes

-mechanism

-diagnosis

-signs and symptoms

-prevention/screening

-treatment and/or management: drugs, procedures

-outcomes

-epidemiology: populations affected

-history*

-society and culture*

-special populations*

* if applicable

Kaileync (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Group 16 Peer Review Comments
Person A: Aya, Person B: Siavash  , Person C: Nishat, Person D: Juan. Juan.GilReynoso (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * Yes, the article is substantially improved. The lead section is a concise summary of the condition that is further explained in the later sections. The topics covered are relevant and are ones that I felt gave me a well-rounded view of the condition without delving in too deep. The sources used also seem to be reliable, mostly coming from journals. One thing that I would consider adding is images of the condition/signs and symptoms.
 * Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * Yes, the article feels complete as it now covers the bases of causes, mechanism, signs and symptoms, treatment, and prevention. Adding a history section could help round out the article (first recorded case, historical context, etc.)
 * Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
 * For the most part, yes. "It is important to note that historically" in the etiology section could be rephrased to sound more neutral. I would also consider removing "primarily family members" and "parents of infants" in the signs and symptoms section as this is an assumption. It could be replaced with "caretakers" or something more general.
 * Ayaide (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you suggestions! Changed wording for both references to reflect neutrality Coshita46 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added images per your suggestion! Thanks! Coshita46 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * - Overall, the structure of this article is outstanding, you have included all the sections necessary to understand this disease and everything about it. The only suggestion I could make is that given that your "Recurrence" and "Epidemiology" sections are short, they can perhaps be combined if you deem appropriate with the flow and be added as one combined section towards the end of the article. In addition, adding a picture of the potential signs and symptoms or linking someone of those words to other articles so viewers know what to expect with this disease in case they are looking this up for themselves or their child.
 * Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * - I believe this article has created a substantial number of edits that have created a quality article that is a ready to be out in Wikipedia for general consumer knowledge. This article contains a great number of references that are great resources for viewers to extract additional Information if desired, and as stated above they have created a great picture of what perianal cellulitis is and everything about it ranging from background to treatment / prevention.
 * Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?
 * - The language in the "Causes" Section could be more inclusive, more specifically when talking about group A vs group B beta-hemolytic streptococci. If possible, perhaps a sentence or two briefly explaining the difference between the two prior to jumping into specifics about perianal cellulitis would help less knowledgeable readers understand this section. Additionally, as mentioned above some of the signs and symptoms mentioned lack an external link or even images to help visualize what these look like. Juan.GilReynoso (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Juan, thank you for your suggestions! We will implement these changes to reflect more specificity when distinguishing between these two strains of bacteria. Nelbershawi (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 have substantially improved the article. There were many sections added to parse out the article into digestible portions. The introduction section does a great job of giving a brief overview of the disease state.There were many trustworthy references added to aid in the strength of the information written in the article. Some edits that could be made are: 1) The sections on etiology and epidemiology are rather short and could be combined into a background section. 2) The recurrence section is also short could be added to the end of the treatment section.
 * Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * According to the edit goals on the Talk page, it appears that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. There are some sections missing from the article that the group was thinking of adding, but they may not be applicable after they researched more about the topic.
 * Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
 * Yes, the article meets Wikipedia guidelines and the article is neutral. There appears to be no opinions presented in the article, and the article overall is objective and presents facts with cited references.
 * Question 4. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
 * The edits are formatted to be consistent to the Wikipedia's manual of style. In the history tab of the article, all editors have offered notes on what they added with most of their edits. For future, all edits should contain some sort of note to alert other editors and readers what was changed each time. The edits all contain neutral information which is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Nishatj (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishat,
 * Thank you for your honest and thorough peer review! After reading through your comments, I appreciate your suggestion on revising some of our headers to help our article become more concise and consolidated. Our group would like to keep the information we found to be easy to navigate, so we decided to follow your suggestion on creating a more general header sections while generating subheadings to keep the short sections we have. Kaileync (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]
 * This group (group 17) has done a great job improving the quality of this article. They have added different causes of the disease, the mechanism of infection, the population that is usually affected and the common treatment for the disease. They have also brought up interesting points about the true site of infection in this disease by comparing cellulitis versus dermatitis. Editors have thoroughly described signs and symptoms of the disease and have brought light to the challenge that physicians often face with diagnosing the perianal cellulitis due to unspecific symptoms and similarity with other conditions like pinworm infestation, IBD, or irritant diaper dermatitis.
 * The text is neutral and also easy to understand for general audience. The topic is very well explained at the beginning of the lead section. However, there could be less details about causes of the disease by different families of bacteria and instead, authors could add short introduction about prevention and recurrence to the lead section.
 * Thank you for your feedback. We incorporated prevention and recurrence into our lead section and reformatted our lead section to match the structure of our article. Sschneider2 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]
 * Yes. The group have come up with a great list of topics to work on and through their editing, they have touched on all of applicable goals that they were aiming for. All sections have been addressed by using contents from reliable sources.
 * Thank you for your feedback! Sschneider2 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]
 * The group has done a great job citing their sources through out the text. Every single statement has been cited by at least one reference ( many statements, even if short, have been cited with multiple references. for example the first 2 sentences of the lead section have 6 references cited!). The group has done a phenomenal job using mostly secondary sources like meta analysis and literature reviews. However, there are couple of references that, by definition, are considered primary. Also, not all of references are available for general public. In some cases, like reference #2, the link that has been created in the reference section, is not the direct link to the book. In other cases, authors might have had access to some resources through their institute, but, a regular audience might not have that access. S.Panahi (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed feedback! The outdated (and unlinked) reference has been removed as well as some duplicate references corrected for. For now, we have left the textbooks accessed through our institution until more easily accessible resources can be found to replace them. Coshita46 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II Group 17 2022 References Review
Group 17 has reviewed all the references and that they are now correctly formatted.

SSchneider2 - References 7-12 Reviewed - Added an URL to a book source - No predatory publishing/no dead links/ no duplicates identifiedSschneider2 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Sschneider2 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Kaileync- References 13-17 Reviewed - Dates fixed for some references to match year format/No predatory publishing/no dead links/duplicate identified with #3 and #13, #3 deleted. Kaileync (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Nelbershawi reviewed references 20 - 25; could not discern any predatory references/dead links/duplicates. Nelbershawi (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Coshita46 References 1-6 Reviewed; Consolidated duplicate references (now reference #1), Removed old citation not used in article & only used in info box(2003), revised citation dates to reflect only year. Could not discern any predatory references/dead links Coshita46 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)