Talk:Prostatic congestion

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Snowlan (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 19 proposed edits
Our group proposes the addition of several topics to the article. This would include background, signs and symptoms, and treatment. In addition to this, we would like to elaborate on the possible causes of the condition. Cjlee1721 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Kachyut (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary literature and others were cited for this article since there are not many studies and secondary sources during this time. Some secondary sources that are available were used. As research continues on this condition, editors may continue to update this article with those sources. MedP22 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviews from Group 18
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

- Yes, the group has substantially improved the article and has added helpful information for those who are interested in knowing more about the condition. The lead gave a good overview as to what the article will discuss but feels too lengthy. The third paragraph of the lead can be just the first two sentences. The remainder of the third paragraph can be the introduction of the "possible causes" section. Overall the organization of the article makes the information easy to digest. I suggest moving the diagnosis section right after "signs and symptoms" and before " treatment". Content is delivered in a neutral and educational way. Kdang0927 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion of moving diagnosis section! I have noted this moved as suggested. MedP22 (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- Yes, the group was able to add a substantial amount of relative information regarding prostatic congestions. The lead is a bit long, especially in the third paragraph, which discusses an epidemiological survey that found that alcohol consumption can exacerbate prostatic congestion. This section could be moved under the first heading of “Possible causes of prostatic congestion.” The content of the overall article is relevant and up to date. They also expanded upon the possible causes of prostatic congestion, which was only a list before editing. I think it would most benefit from adding internal links to other Wikipedia articles. CNakamura17 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions! We have added internal links to other wikipedia articles. MedP22 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

-- Thank you for your feedback! We've edited our lead to move the third paragraph to the "Possible causes" section instead to help make it more concise. Cjlee1721 (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- Yes, the group's edits have substantially improved the article. Originally the article only had 2 sentences along with a bullet point list of possible causes of prostatic congestion. The lead has been expanded to 3 paragraphs, reflecting some of the new content added. The first sentence concisely summarizes the condition. The lead, however, should include brief descriptions of each section. Currently, it is missing a description of treatments. Additionally, some parts of the lead are overly detailed and not concise. The last paragraph is very detailed and goes into an epidemiological study. I think this could be moved to one of the content sections instead of in the lead. In terms of content, the information is relevant. Some references are older (20+ years old), but it is mixed with a lot of more recent references as well. There does not seem to be any content missing. Stephdly (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- The article is straight to the point and provides lots of valuable information. However, it would be helpful to incorporate a short description of the main sections that are going to be discussed in order for the reader to have a better understanding of what the article will be discussing as a whole. The introductory paragraphs does appear long and I think that some of that information could be incorporated elsewhere in other sections like the possible causes sections, such as the part on alcohol consumption. Noriellerosario (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Norielle Rosario


 * Thank you for the feedback! After looking at our article, we agree and have implemented this suggestion. Nkhaddajmallat (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

- Yes, they have added relevant sections that were not previously available on the stub article (e.g extensive treatment and causes listed. They were also able to expand on the previous “cause” section and included an explanation as to why the condition may be occurring due to each cause.Kdang0927 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- Yes, they were able to add all of the subheaders they had planned for with relevant and up-to-date information. CNakamura17 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- The group's goals included adding sections on background, signs and symptoms, treatment, and an elaboration on causes. All of these goals have been achieved. Stephdly (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- Yes, the editors were able to achieve their intended goals by adding the sections that they wanted to add and being able to provide explanations within those sections. An example would be that they wanted to elaborate more on the possible causes, and I believe that they were able to achieve that goal by using lay language to help it become more understandable for the reader. Noriellerosario (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Norielle Rosario

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view [explain]?

- Yes, it does display a neutral point of view because it discusses all possible treatment options and causes related to this condition and does not appear to favor one over the other, and they have added references to support the findings. Noriellerosario (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Norielle Rosario

'''Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]''' Stephdly (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

- Yes, for the most part, the edits do reflect DEI principles. Most of the edits opt for the usage of "individuals" rather than "men" which is inclusive to individuals who aren't men but have prostates. The only section where this is not reflected is under "prostate cancer" in the possible causes section. The first sentence could change "older men" to "older adults." However, the rest of the section that details the study, where men only were enrolled, can keep the usage of "men" since that properly reflects the study population. Also, under the diagnosis section, I think the usage of "you" should be changed. Stephdly (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I will be working on this and will fix this section. The feedback provided was very helpful and you make a good point. Kachyut (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I went ahead and worked on some of those suggestions you have made! MedP22 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

'''Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]'''

- The group did use a handful of primary literature articles as noted in the initial “proposed edits” post. However, they were very transparent about it in the article writing, “In a nationwide epidemiological survey…” or “Five randomized controlled trials…” They also added a good amount of secondary sources like meta-analyses and systematic reviews and noted those as well (“A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2021”). Although I did encounter a few paywalls for some of their sources (ex. “Toxic Hyperplasia of the Prostate Gland1”, “Phytotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia”), a majority of them were freely available. CNakamura17 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with wikipedia's manual of style

- Yes, the group organized the article into signs& symptoms, possible causes, treatment options, and diagnosis which were all part of the manual of style for diseases/disorders/syndromes. The information is relayed in neutral language and all the sections are clearly labeled in a way to distinguish a change in information/topics to the reader. Kdang0927 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Group 19 has reviewed all references and it has been correctly formatted
- cjlee1721 has reviewed references #15 - 21 - #18 was identified as a duplicate with #15 and was consolidated. It is now referred as #15 only. Revised dates formatting in references. Cjlee1721 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

- Kachyut has reviewed references #7 - 14 - #12 did not have any references in the article. The plan is to search for another resource or to remove the line that uses that reference completely. Kachyut (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

-MedP22 has reviewed references #1-6 and correct formatting was made for all of them including fixing incorrect formatting for the dates for publishing and retrieval dates. MedP22 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

-Nkhaddajmallat has reviewed references #22-27 and fixed some formatting errors. There were no duplicates found here and no predatory journals. Nkhaddajmallat (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)