User:Awong21/sandbox

Question 1. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Yes, the group substantially improved the articles based on the "Guiding framework". The lead is very clear and concise and outlines the content throughout the page with a strong lead sentence. One possible improvement is to either briefly explain terms or provide links to other pages. The content in the article uses update resources and covers what is relevant towards the disease. There is no material that does not belong in the content. The article does not address historically underrepresented populations and topics. Content is neutral and not biased. Sources used are diverse and most were recently published. The content accurately represents information from those sources. Links to sources are working and very few sources. The group has added tables to help present its content.

Question 2. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

The article has come a long way since the group as started editing. A significant amount of content has been added in a concise and organized way. The group does an excellent job at explaining the disease and summarizing up to date guidelines on diagnosis and treatment. Some improvements that can be made are to explaining or link more more terms throughout the article, although the group has done a good job of this for several terms already. Overall, the group has significantly improved the article.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?


 * Person A answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]


 * Person B answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]
 * Person C answers: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
 * Yes, this group's edit are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The page is formatted properly with appropriate headings and sections. Content is presented in concise and succinct manners that are very informative.
 * Person D answers: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

Treatment
For uterine meiolyomas, complete removal of the uterus is required.

Subareolar meiolyomas require surgical removals.

41-year-old-male
A 41-year-old-male presented with a yellow nodule in the upper left areola. Sebaceous glands, epidermal hyperplasia, and tumor nests were among the numerous findings that lead to preceded a diagnosis of diagnosis of areolar leiomyoma with sebaceous hyperplasia. The patient declined resection and the region has remained stable since.

67-year-old-female
A 67-year-old-female presented with a growing mass on the left breast areolar region. The patient had been taking methotrexate to treat her rheumatoid arthritis. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed led to a conclusion that the tumor arose from the areola. A biopsy led to a diagnosis of diffuse large, non GC B-cell lymphoma that was suspected to be associated with methotrexate. The tumor reduced in size following the withdrawal of methotrexate. Three months later, another tumor developed in the areolar region of the opposite breast.

48-year-old-female
A 48-year-old-female presented with several uterine fibroids that were asymptomatic. The tumor was removed vaginally which revealed to be a vaginal leiomyoma. Vaginal leiomyomas are rare and removal by vaginal route is the perfered treatment option.