Talk:Theca lutein cyst

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Z.W.Abdul (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 29 proposed edits
We suggest the following changes: Dgarza23 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Check current sources
 * 2) Reword sentences so that non-health experts may understand. Expand on terms that may be confusing to non-health professionals
 * 3) Have more inclusive language (i.e. say "Persons" who smoke rather than "Women" who smoke)
 * 4) Add more information while re-organizing article

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
The group's edits substantially improve the article, which had previously consisted of not much more than a brief paragraph for the lead. Not only did the group successfully meet their goal of adding more information and organization, there were edits made that improved upon the previous content. However, there is still room for improvement for reducing jargon and improving clarity, particularly in the lead. While many specific terms were appropriately linked with other articles for the reader to find out more, readability would be improved with the inclusion of more brief definitions or substitutions of medical jargon with layperson-friendly phrases. The subject was obviously a difficult one to introduce in lay language and the group's efforts within the time given are still impressive. The group also met their goal of adding and removing previous sources as appropriate. The group's goal of more inclusive language could be improved on further, as the article still contains some language that is unnecessarily gendered. For example, referring to those who might have the condition as "women." In terms of organization, the sections added were appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines for medical articles. "Other considerations" also added interesting and relevant information that might otherwise have been left out if the group only included the bare minimum sections for a medical article. The section "Secondary health conditions" might be better placed under "Etiology" instead of "Diagnosis" since the section currently describes cause and mechanism more than identification of the condition. Z.W.Abdul (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe the groups edits improve the article drastically. The framing of their article is extremely organized and easy to follow. I enjoyed how the introduction to their article is brief, but straight to the point as it really sets the atmosphere for the remaining contents of their article. I liked how all difficult terms where appropriately linked with relating articles.
 * The group has achieved their goals for improvement as well. It seems as though they've double checked their sources and ensured that they are up to date and appropriate for the article. I also notice that their goal of using more lay language has been met. The article is an easy read and includes resources for harder terms to be understood. However, their goal of more inclusive language can be further worked on since I did notice the term woman/women a couple times throughout the article. R.Khalilieh (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback and pointing out the areas where we can use more inclusive language! We will monitor and revise the language used. R. Dela Cruz, UCSF (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the group does substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review guiding framework. The article starts off with a very comprehensive overview of the topic and breaks down the article so that we know exactly what to expect when we're reading it. The words are very easy to understand and each word that is complicated is defined further for an audience that is less familiar with the topic. Additionally a lot of sources that the article references are secondary sources which includes more reliable information and has already interpreted primary sources. The group’s overall changes that they wanted to do were to check the sources, reword sentences so that the article is easier to understand, and also have more inclusive language in addition to adding more information while reorganizing the article. I think that the group did a great job of achieving all of these goals because the article is easy to understand, has great organization, and also is very up to date with the sources and information. Lwupharm (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comparing the article from before to what it has become after the group's edits, the article has improved greatly. The lead section was easy to understand as they used words and descriptions that would be understanding to the people that would read this article without any clinical knowledge. The structure of the wiki is much more clear compared to what it was previously. There is much more content and sections in the wiki than there was when they first obtained the article to edit. The article is well balanced where there is fair amount of information in each section and the sources that used for the article are good and come from recent research/sites. The sound of the article is a neutral tone which is important when it comes to readers looking into the article. Overall, with this group's edits, the article has become more informational and reliable source for people to read into the topic, theca lutein cyst. D Do!UCSFpharmstudent2024 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
Yes. I found no opinions stated as fact or any obvious bias given to a particular point of view. The article's tone (as well as that of the sources used) is impartial. Z.W.Abdul (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
The editors of this article do a beautiful job citing every point made within the article. Each idea/fact is correctly cited throughout the article. I liked how multiple facts are double cited showing that the editor(s) took time into digging deep into that specific idea and double checking the validity of the data presented in each source. Each source seems to be relevant and up to date with the topic at hand as well. R.Khalilieh (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
Yes, the article style is consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The article makes use of headings and subheadings to create organization and keeps the images right aligned. The article has good grammar that aligns with the guidelines, however, I would recommend that the authors reread the article one more time just to make sure that some of the sentences are not redundant in their wording. Lwupharm (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?
The edits that were made by this group for this article do reflect diversity, equity and inclusion. The medical health condition is Theca lutein cyst which is a medical condition that specifically impacts women and pregnant women. It is difficult to include every individual into this topic but the group has done a great job to include all women into the wikipage such as gestation and obese women. By doing so, they have made it inclusion to all the groups of women that are diagnosed with this medical condition. D Do!UCSFpharmstudent2024 (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 References
@R._Dela_Cruz,_UCSF reviewed #1-11

@Ltordera24 reviewed #12-23

@Dgarza23 reviewed #24-33

All references have been reviewed and are correctly formatted. No predatory sources or duplicate sources were found.

Dgarza23 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)