User:Kaileync/Perianal cellulitis/S.panahi UCSF PharmD Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

S.panahi UCSF PharmD


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Perianal cellulitis
 * Perianal cellulitis

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

This group (group 17) has done a great job improving the quality of this article. They have added different causes of the disease, the mechanism of infection, the population that is usually affected and the common treatment for the disease. They have also brought up interesting points about the true site of infection in this disease by comparing cellulitis versus dermatitis. Editors have thoroughly described signs and symptoms of the disease and have brought light to the challenge that physicians often face with diagnosing the perianal cellulitis due to unspecific symptoms and similarity with other conditions like pinworm infestation, IBD, or irritant diaper dermatitis.

The text is neutral and also easy to understand for general audience. The topic is very well explained at the beginning of the lead section. However, there could be less details about causes of the disease by different families of bacteria and instead, authors could add short introduction about prevention and recurrence to the lead section.


 * Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Yes. The group have come up with a great list of topics to work on and through their editing, they have touched on all of applicable goals that they were aiming for. All sections have been addressed by using contents from reliable sources.


 * Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

The group has done a great job citing their sources through out the text. Every single statement has been cited by at least one reference ( many statements, even if short, have been cited with multiple references. for example the first 2 sentences of the lead section have 6 references cited!). The group has done a phenomenal job using mostly secondary sources like meta analysis and literature reviews. However, there are couple of references that, by definition, are considered primary. Also, not all of references are available for general public. In some cases, like reference #2, the link that has been created in the reference section, is not the direct link to the book. In other cases, authors might have had access to some resources through their institute, but, a regular audience might not have that access.