User:R. Dela Cruz, UCSF/Theca lutein cyst/Z.W.Abdul Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Foundations II 2022 group 29


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Theca lutein cyst

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)

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)