Talk:Senile pruritus

Article categorization
This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Nkhaddajmallat (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

'''Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?'''

Yes, the article has greatly improved and a lot more detail has been added to the article. I especially like how detailed the treatment section is and how there were many bullet-pointed list to make the article more visually appealing and easier to navigate. TNgo UCSFPharmD (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that this group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “guiding framework”. The lead has been significantly improved adding concise and relevant information that gives a good overview of the major points in this topic. The content of the article is all relevant with good, up to date references and each section is well balanced however, I might add a sentence or two explaining the different classifications. One of the things I may change about this article is the structure in which the information is presented in. Specifically I would move complications more towards the bottom of the article after things like pathophysiology and signs & symptoms as I feel these are more important and make more sense towards the top of the article. Another thing I would try to work on is maybe finding some images of what this condition may look like; I feel like that would add a lot to the article. DHouston, UCSF PharmD Candidate (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added additional information about the classifications to the article after signs and symptoms as suggested. I am also going to add images to enhance the quality of the article. Daisham13 (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the article substantially improves the article. Some things that the article did well is that the lead is succinct and to the point. Wording (like "elderly") was edited to be more inclusive, and the rest of the paragraph provides a general overview of the condition that reflects the structure of the rest of the article (demographics, symptoms, possible causes, and diagnosis/treatment process). Also, the sections are well-organized and follow the Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. In addition, the article has appropriate lengths and sections for the subject. It draws from multiple sources and provides a neutral view. Pleung2022 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Some suggestions are that, in the Treatments section, I appreciate the way the article went over each class medications. However, the content in the "Anti-histamines/anti-pruritic" and "Anti-histamines" sections are a little redundant. Perhaps, those 2 sections can be combined and placed where the "Anti-histamines" section is now, and the "Phototherapy" section can transition straight into the "Soak and smear approach" section. Another suggestion is to put the "Immunosuppressants" section with the other pharmacological sections, before "Phototherapy", since it seems like the order of the sections goes from pharmacological to non-pharmacological treatments. Lastly, right under the "Treatment" section, the 1st paragraph seems a little long. A possible breaking place for a 2nd paragraph is before the sentence "There are challenges that come with approaching treatment for senior pruritus…", since the topic seems to go from an overview of treatments to challenges of treatments. Pleung2022 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The article has been substantially improved through the addition of several appropriate section headers to organize information and details regarding the condition. The lead section provides good summarization but can be further expanded upon to cover the sections added to the article such as touching on the treatments of senile pruritus. K.Wong-Pharm (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

'''Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?'''

I could not see their goals for the article but the article was greatly improved and a lot more information was added to the topic. The article felt detailed but it did not look like an encyclopedia because it had well-spaced sections and bullet-pointed lists to make use of extra space so that the article does not feel very word dense. TNgo UCSFPharmD (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not see this groups specific goals on the talk page however, I do think they did a good job achieving overall improvement of this article. They have contributed a significant amount of useful information to the article that really helps the reader get a better understanding for this condition. All the information is presented in a clear and concise way with links to help explain topics that may be confusing for a casual reader. The article was very brief before this group added to it and their contributions significantly improved the information provided in this article. DHouston, UCSF PharmD Candidate (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see the group's goals but their edits have greatly improved the article with many details and sources that are well-organized and succinct. Pleung2022 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In the article draft's proposed edits, there were plans to add several sections of background information, signs and symptoms, treatments and solutions, risk factors, and potential causes. They have added sources and information for all of these as well as some additional areas such as complications. K.Wong-Pharm (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

'''Question 3a. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?''' The article reflects a neutral point of view for the majority of the content. Most of the sections are presented in a neutral academic way, sometimes using heavy academic language such as in the pathophysiology section. These could be aided by either elaborating on more complex terms or adding WikiLinks to relevant articles. Text within the treatment section sometimes presents information with the tone of giving advice suggesting that some treatments are more appropriate or better than others. Using words such as "recommended", "useful", "if possible" , and "one should" all contribute to the tone of giving medical advice and having a positive tone towards some treatments and a negative tone towards others. K.Wong-Pharm (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

''' Question 3b. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]'''

I believe the citations could be a bit better with regards to where they are placed. Some sentences/sections end without a citations which makes it difficult to tell where the information was gathered from. All of the sources seem to be reliable and relevant secondary sources however I don’t think all of them are freely available. The ones that I don’t think are freely available include reference 2 ("The prevalence of skin diseases in the elderly: analysis of 4099 geriatric patients”), reference 8 ("Willan's itch and other causes of pruritus in the elderly”), reference 17 ("BP180- and BP230-specific IgG autoantibodies in pruritic disorders of the elderly: a preclinical stage of bullous pemphigoid?”) and reference 5 (“dermatology”). These sources may be available freely to certain populations though (ie. UCSF students or other graduate students). DHouston, UCSF PharmD Candidate (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this information/feedback. I have gone through specific sections to add additional citations to indicate where the information is coming from. Daisham13 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Question 3c: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

While some of the article is formatted properly, I feel like the introductory section under "Pathophysiology" could be edited so it matches the formatting of the "Risk factors" and "classification" section. I feel as if the "Neurological" section under "Pathophysiology" has very scientific language that is not easily understood by the common man. The "Treatment" section has very inconsistent writing style. Some subsections start by describing the therapy while others, like "cooling agents" started by talking about the symptoms relief. TNgo UCSFPharmD (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this feedback. Going to create a distinction between therapy and symptom relief. Vnguyen11475 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

'''Question 3d. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?'''

Yes, the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, and the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. For example, elderly was introduced as "people over 65 years of age." Also, "person" or "people" was used, instead of "patients" or "subjects". In addition, the article covered different types of treatment, not just pharmacological ones. Pleung2022 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reference Review

All references are all appropriately formatted according to WP:MOS. User:K.MAII reviewed #1-5 User:Vnguyen11475 reviewed #6-10 User:Daisham13 reviewed #11-15 User:Rx rlee reviewed #16-20 Vnguyen11475 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnguyen11475 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)