Talk:Childhood arthritis
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Childhood arthritis.
|
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Childhood arthritis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307140005/http://www.arthritis.org:80/ja-fact-sheet.php to http://www.arthritis.org/ja-fact-sheet.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pvedam, Wendy xie00, SUemura30, Iwill95, Yunling.Yang (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Atentoglou, Vttran, Dytsang, Mdatsop.
— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
UCSF Article Update Plan
[edit]- Update therapies to include non-pharmacological & recent pharmacological treatments
- Update with latest disease classification information (JADAS)
- Add an “Outcomes/prognosis” section
- Add an image (if feasible)
- Add “Risk factors” section Iwill95 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Peer reviews from Group
[edit]Peer reviews Mdatsop (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Person A: Mdatsop Mdatsop (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1. Do the groups's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework?"
The group's edits do substantially improve the article. Many of the sections have been expanded in great detail and numerous sources have been added. The revised introduction does a better job of describing the overall content of the article with the mention of subtypes, prognosis, complications, and treatment. Mdatsop (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
The group did achieve all of their goals stated on their talk page with the exception of adding an image. Updates have been made to the therapies, outcomes/prognosis sections, and risk factors are updated in the causes section. Mdatsop (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
3A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)
The draft submission does maintain a neutral tone. There is no bias toward a particular demographic or ideology. Evidence that is provided comes from diverse sources. Language of the article is not persuasive or emotional.Mdatsop (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Person B: Dytsang
1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? (explain)
After reading the article, the group's edits did substantially improve the article. Each of the sections in the article describes childhood arthritis in greater detail and the reader is able to understand more about this condition. The added information is relevant to the topic. dytsang (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? (explain)
The group did achieve its overall goals for improvement. The group added more citations to help support their content and each group member contributed to editing the article. dytsang (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
3B. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain)
The claims that are included are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available. I was able to check the sources and see that they are current. The sources used supported the article's content. dytsang (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Person C: Atentoglou
1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? (explain)
The edits have significantly enhanced and improved the article. The expanded sections now provide more detailed information of childhood arthritis and the articles content is clearer compared to the original article. Overall, the revised information is now more relevant and allows the reader to gain a deeper understanding of childhood arthritis. Atentoglou (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? (explain)
The group successfully met its improvement goals. The article is more enhanced due to the abundance of added citations from all members and there is more information in all sections of the article. Atentoglou (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
3C. Are the edits formatted consistent with wikipedia's manual of style? (explain)
Yes, the edits are consistent with wikipedia's manual of style. The headings/subheadings are properly used, citations have correct formatting and placement when referencing, sections and layout are appropriate and organized, the language and tone are consistent and neutral, and there is consistent use of formatting throughout the article. Atentoglou (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Person D: vttran
1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes, the group's edits has improved the article greatly as there are more details about the childhood arthritis. The group expansion on causes, diagnosis, and treatments provided value to the article. Additionally, they provided disclaimers as needed when evidence lack.
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]
The group has achieved a majority of its goals, other than including an image. In this case, including an image may be difficult as this is not a common disease state for this population. The group meets its aims to add information to prognosis and other treatments.
3D. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]
The edits do reflect language of DEI. This shines through in their psychosocial impact section as it addresses more difficult situations such as social and academic challenges. Language appears to be appropriate throughout.Vttran (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge articles
[edit]Hello! I am new to editing at Wikipedia so I am not sure if I am doing this the right way.
I have a suggestion of merging the two articles childhood arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis while they are pretty much discussing the same disease, but from different angles. Juvenile idiopathic artritis is the umbrella term. Buffet77 (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)