User:Emmaspen 4/sandbox

This is a good place for drafts

Article Evaluation

As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The section titled “Risk groups” does not fit well with the information in that paragraph; it may have been better to split this section into “Gleason Score” and “Treatment” or “Treatment by Staging”
 * There is only one reference for the entire page; this should be checked and more references should be added.
 * All the acronyms are a bit distracting; perhaps they could be presented in a more straightforward way, or more clearly defined in one place at the start of the article.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article appears to be presented in a fairly factual and neutral tone; however, the article does make some claims that are not supported with references. For example, stating that one method is more commonly used in comparison to another method, but not backing this up with empirical evidence.
 * This article would be strengthened by the inclusion of more references to support the claims, or to substantiate that these are in fact the most common/up to date prostate cancer staging methods.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The major staging systems for prostate cancer are discussed in the article, but the article is over-representing the information from that one particular source. The use of other credible sources to support the content in the article would improve the WikiPage quality. Furthermore, the article places too much emphasis on the TNM staging relative to the Whitmore-Jewett stage because of an unsupported claim that the latter is not commonly used by physicians.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * There is only 1 citation that is from a book published in 2006, titled Contemporary Issues in Prostate Cancer: A Nursing Perspective. The link to this reference works, however, the reference is outdated by 11 years. To add, the article claims that the TNM staging is commonly used as per the 6th edition guidelines of the American Joint Committee of Cancer. However, this is false as the 7th edition has already been implemented and not many clinicians use use the 6th edition guidelines anymore. As such, the Wiki Article could benefit from a recent systematic review performed within the last 5 years to increase the accuracy and validity of the information.


 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are they secondary sources? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?


 * Only one source is provided, and this source is only referenced one time in the article. This source is a textbook, “Contemporary Issues in Prostate Cancer: A Nursing Perspective,” which  is a neutral secondary source. The article would benefit from having more statements referenced individually to at least substantiate that more than one source confirms the information presented in the article.


 * Is any information out of date (within 5 years from the publication date)? Is anything missing that could be added?


 * The referenced source for the article was published in 2006.
 * The article could benefit from more internal Wikipedia links, for example a link to a Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) article, as PSA is an important part of tracking prostate cancer development that is alluded to in the article on many occasions.
 * Some systematic reviews could be included to speak to the effectiveness or use in practice of these staging scales
 * The article could have delved deeper into the prognoses for each stage, since it states at the beginning of the article that this is what cancer staging is for (however, reference question 7 for Talk Page concerns/discussions about doing this).


 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * According to the talk page, this article has been rated as Start-Class and of High-Importance.
 * The majority of the conversations that have taken place on this page are from 2005. Other than addressing basic concerns such as the appropriate title for the article, avoiding copyright violation, or highlighting the use of outdated staging guidelines, there have been conversations regarding the inclusion of a section on prognosis related to prostate cancer staging. The final consensus was to exclude that section because it may cause undue stress to men with prostate cancer reading about their prognosis, and because prognostic information can best be contextualized and applied in individual circumstances using a physician’s clinical judgment.


 * Outline the article as it stands. What do you plan to contribute?
 * The article starts with an overview of prostate cancer staging and mentions the two common schemes used to stage prostate cancer.
 * Next, the article outlines the two different approaches for staging: TNM staging and Whitmore-Jewett staging.
 * Finally, the article outlines some of the risk groups
 * We plan to contribute the following:
 * Addition of up-to-date references/sources to support some of the claims outlined in the article (e.g., systematic reviews)
 * Reviewing claims and ensuring they are accurate and supported by current research on the topic
 * Addition of pictures or diagrams
 * More internal hyperlinks to major terms for more background information (e.g., a link to prostate cancer, PSA)
 * Possible addition of new sections depending on what is found during a review of current literature.

"Emmaspen 4 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)" adds my signature