Talk:Pruritic folliculitis of pregnancy

Article categorization
This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM. kilbad (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Snschmidt (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2022, Group 20 Goals & Proposed Edits
Our goals for this article include:


 * 1) Write a more detailed introduction paragraph about pruritic folliculitis of pregnancy; include epidemiology background of this condition
 * 2) Add pathophysiology section
 * 3) Add signs and symptoms section
 * 4) Add diagnosis section
 * 5) Add treatment section, including any guidelines available
 * 6) Add pictures throughout the article where they are needed
 * 7) Add dominant case studies that bring attention to this condition
 * 8) Add systemic reviews, meta analysis, and other secondary references

There are not many articles available at this time on this topic. Future editors may improve this page as more information become available. Pachoualor (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes, the edits do improve the article substantially. Starting with the lead section, the group's edits made the text more lay language friendly, as well as elaborated more on what pruritic folliculitis of pregnancy is to provide the reader with a better overview. In addition to this, the group added six more sections to provide more details on the condition. By adding these sections, the reader is now able to get a better understanding of the history of the condition, common signs and symptoms, the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment, all of which is useful in cases for individuals trying to find more information on pruritic folliculitis. Compared to its initial state, the article originally only had two lines in its lead section providing a summary of what pruritic folliculitis is. This group has added much more content overall to the article.Cjlee1721 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The groups edits do significantly improve the article. Before the edits were made, the article only had one sentence explaining briefly what the condition was and included medical jargon. There were also just two references listed and a medical table with the pathology of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium. The group has added more information on the background (lead section) and added more sections including history, pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, management/treatment, clinical studies and case reports sections. The content they added does not include a lot of medical jargon and made it more reader friendly. They have also added an additional 13 references to the article. MedP22 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Overall, the group has completed a substantial amount of progress towards their goals. Their goals of elaborating on their introduction; adding several sections, including, pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and case studies; and adding additional secondary sources have been addressed, as they have began adding content to each of those sections, all of which have been supported by credible sources. There is still some progress to be made regarding their goal of including more images in their article as needed, as no images have been added at this time. Cjlee1721 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The group has overall met their overall goals for improvement since they were able to add more content regarding the background of the condition (in the lead section), added new sections reflecting the information they wanted to include listed in their “goals” in the talk page. The sections they added include pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, clinical studies and case reviews. They also mentioned there are no official guidelines for treating the condition and this is something they mentioned they wanted to add if it was available. The only goal they were not able to meet so far were adding pictures in the article, other than that they have met their goals. MedP22 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3a: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
The draft submission overall does reflect a neutral point of view since they do not use first- or second-person point of view and rather use third person point of view. For instance, they don’t say “I” or “we” at all in the article. The group also mention pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to treatment of the condition and the article remains free of bias, opinions and remains objective throughout. In the clinical studies and case reports section, I like how the group added two case reports with one woman using “benzoyl peroxide” and the other woman not using it to help with the condition and even though both women experienced the same result (resolution of pruritic folliculitis) the group remained neutral and did not include any conclusions or opinions regarding the results. In most parts of the article such as in the history section, they use “women” rather than “patient” when describing when the condition was first observed. However, in the clinical studies and case reports section, “patient” was used in the second paragraph when describing the 39 year old case report. To remain neutral, replace patient with “individual” or a similar word. MedP22 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3b: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
Yes, this group does a good job of including reliable sources to help support their claims. Their sources include a variety of both primary and secondary literature, although the majority of the sources used are secondary. Additionally, the majority of the articles cited are free to the public, with the exception of only a few that are restricted to those with licenses or institutional access. All of their sources have also been found by articles that are fairly recent, and also from credible journals, such as the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology. This group also does a great job in citing their claims with such sources throughout their article. Cjlee1721 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The group's edits make the article better to understand. There are clear and concise lead sections that are easy to understand and make reading the article easier for the general public. The flow of the article is also nicely structured as it starts with the history of Pruritic folliculitis and then transitions into pathophysiology, symptoms, and treatment. This will allow the ready to get the full picture of this topic. The content is neutral meaning evidence/ treatment strategies are all presented fairly. Lastly, the group has reliable references as some are systemic reviews and other secondary literature. My suggestions would be in the diagnosis section to elaborate more about how this condition is different than other conditions (and to also define the other conditions) such as eczema and prurigo. I would also define come medical jargon such as defining what IgG, IgM, and IgA are. Nkhaddajmallat (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I will link eczema, prurigo, IgG, IgM, and IgA to their respective wiki pages. K. Tran, UCSF Pharmacy Student (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
The group was able to add many new sections that enhanced this article such as adding a signs and symptoms section and a treatment section. The group has yet to add pictures throughout the article. The group has added case studies which will allow readers to relate to this article and understand this condition on a more personal level. In addition to case studies, I would also include large scale studies (if applicable) that way the reader can have a greater understanding of this condition and the treatment for this condition as to how it different treatment had different success rates. Lastly, the group has added more systemic reviews and meta analysis to their references making this article more reliable and trustable to readers. For the most part the group was able to get through their goals for improvement. Nkhaddajmallat (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, due to the rarity of this condition there are not many large scale studies. We are also unable to add any photos of the disease as photos displayed in journals are copyrighted. K. Tran, UCSF Pharmacy Student (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?
This article is very neutral and reflects a language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. There are some edits that might be beneficial to the readers regarding this topic. i would be interested in seeing how and if the prevalence of this condition changes based on ethnicity or if the incidence of this condition increases with age. I would also add an imaging section to give readers a better understanding of how this condition manifests and looks like on different skin tones. These changes can allow readers to relate to the article in a more personal manner and increase their confidence in their health before seeing a healthcare provider. Nkhaddajmallat (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 1: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The article has been substantially improved from before. History, pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, management and treatment, and clinical studies and case reports sections have been added. the lead section with a few sentences summary is easy to understand, and summarizes the rest of the article well. The lead also reflects the most important information covered in the article, although, it could be improved with a line or two about the diagnosis, management and treatment. At this point, the lead mainly focusses on the earlier topics covered in the article like the history, signs and symptoms. The article has been well structured with the respective sections in an easy to read order. The content overall is neutral and does not take a stance. The clinical studies and case reports section can be improved by modifying the structure. Right now, the tone is very different from the rest of the article, possibly because it is recounting a person's experience. This section can be modified slightly. Most of the sources are from reliable sources such as peer reviewed journals. Overall, the group's edits substantially improve the article. Kachyut (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 2: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
The group has added pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, diagnosis and treatment sections, as well as some case reports and other studies. The group has not used any pictures as they intended yet. The group has used some reviews and meta analyses. Overall, the group has achieved 75% of their goal for improving the article. The article can be made even stronger by adding some pictures, improving the lead section to reflect diagnosis, management and treatment, and by slightly modifying the structure of the case studies section. Kachyut (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3c: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
The first few words of the article are bolded, and are consistent with wikipedia's style manual. Most of the language used throughout the article is succinct and straightforward as well. The article is organized in a chronological order with the lead section first followed by history, pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and management, followed by case reports. For each of the subtopics, headers have been used consistently. The group can use more hyperlinks to already existing pages so that readers can refer those pages as needed. Kachyut (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Group 20 Reference Check
We collectively double checked the sources for predatory journals. We decided that the impact factor does not fully reflect the quality of the source because some of our sources are from countries with fewer resources. We believe that these articles still add value to this wikipedia page, since pruritic folliculitis does not have extensive existing research. When writing this page, we used the same sources separately without knowing that other people has already used that source. Therefore, we spent time to consolidated duplicate sources. Pachoualor (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)