User:Mhowiki/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Category:Rheumatology

Option 1

Article title

Antiphospholipid syndrome

Article Evaluation

-Overall there is a good amount of information; however, I think it uses a lot of jargon and is written more for those with medical degree to understand compared to a lay person. It is underdeveloped in the sense that it has many sentences marked with "citation needed" (17 need citations), and there is recent literature that could be added to update the page.

-Lead section: has good flow and organization but I think a few more details could be added and removed to summarize it better

-Treatment section: this could be expanded upon and updated. There is new research out there and while I have not read the articles yet, I am curious if it changes or supports what is written.

-Prognosis is only one section and does not mention pregnancy. I think that since this disease affects pregnancy, which this article also mentions, it should talk about prognosis for pregnancy given this disease there.

-Talk page: It has much discussion and some articles but those are old suggestions although its unclear if it was added or changed. Article is rated a c-class and mid-importance by physiology and medicine but low importance in terms of women's health.

-Grammar and organization: has most broad sections and no grammar errors I found on first glance. Organization of information within sections could improve. I feel it does not flow smoothly and subheaders for the antibodies can be confusing at times (especially in diagnosis section).

-Inconsistent time intervals between testing of lupus anticoagulant in the diagnosis section (12 weeks in criteria vs 6 weeks subheading section)

Sources

Link to filtered pubmed search: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=antiphospholipid+syndrome&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=datesearch.y_5

Option 2

Article title

Macrophage activation syndrome

Article Evaluation

- Talk: this was rated "start" and "mid importance". Only comment in talk page is that maybe HLH should be included because does not have page of its own but now it does, making the comment irrelevant.

-General: all section are a bit short and underdeveloped, uses a lot of jargon (I wonder if pancytopenia, lymphadenopathy ect... needs to be changed if its linked to the page?)

-Tone: neutral tone, emphasize the common disease in which this is featured more such as the diagnosis section. I would change where it says "known or suspected SoJIA" and increase that to other diseases associated with MAS.

Sources: not thorough, plenty of sources to add, last one was in 2019.

-Lead section: does not summarize the information or sections well enough, it could be expanded upon to include more about general diagnosis and treatment.

Sources

Not as many sources as compared to antiphospholipid syndrome however there are multiple new review articles that have been published that are not in the sources section of the wiki article. Last pub included in the article was from 2019. Pubmed search https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=macrophage+activation+syndrome&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=datesearch.y_5

Option 3

Article title

Livedo reticularis

Article Evaluation

Pictures: could use more, and especially include more diverse skin tones

Content: expansive list of causes and associated diseases however it is unbalanced with no physiology or prognosis section and very short diagnosis and treatment sections

Sources: has ALOT of sources (47) which makes me curious to whether they all are necessary or if the sections can be expanded upon with the sources listed

Talk: considered start and mid importance, last edited in 2017

Lead section: it is short and I think goes into too much detail and not enough depending on the section it is discussing. I don't think listing disease or categories is necessary a couple times. I think it should be paired down to once.

Sources

does not seem to be enough research on pubmed to expand article