Talk:Dukes' disease

In 1991, a review of the original 1900 Lancet paper describing Duke's disease was performed. The researchers determined all of the cited cases were attributable to misdiagnosed rubella and scarlet fever. They also document the general trend of eliminating the disease from pediatric textbooks between 1900 and 1960 because the disease in not observed. They conclude "4th disease" is better thought to be a series of misdiagnosed rubella and scarlet fever rather than a free-standing disease with its own etiology.

Morens DM, Katz AR. The "fourth disease" of childhood: reevaluation of a nonexistent disease. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1991;134:6 p628-640.

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

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): Escholes, EliseSung, Lsu02, Seksiao (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wenrivera, Caitlynaryan, Msalazar101, SahSaravanan.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK448135/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ⸺RandomStaplers 02:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations II Goals

• Add 5000 characters in total per editor

• Add 6 additional references per editor

• Continue editing for 3+ straight days

• Update and/or correct any information as needed Lsu02 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

· Add history section to article

· Add more information to treatment and diagnosis sections

· Add pictures to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escholes (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review of Article

Wendy

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

Yes, after reviewing the goals for the Wiki edits the group did achieve to improve the article. For example, using the "Guiding framework" and the section titled "History" the group managed to broaden and provide more information in regards to the history of Duke's disease. In this section, the group maintained a neutral tone and the information was relevant to the section/main topic.

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

The group did achieve its overall goals for improvement, as listed on the talk page. However, one section that I was unsure of was the comparison of scarlet fever to Duke's disease. In the introductory paragraph, it was mentioned that Duke's was similar to multiple rashes or conditions, and at certain stages of Duke's, it resembled different rashes. I would suggest giving a comparison to each of the listed rashes/conditions or providing a diagram showing the comparison/contrast of the rashes. Aside from this suggestion, I believe the group did a good job in making edits and improving the article.

3. & 3a. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

The article does meet Wikipedia guidelines in terms of including 6 references and the 5,000 character count. Any statements mentioned in the article include a reference from a credible source that is not out of date. In addition, the article does reflect a neutral point of view by not making any one-sided statements/opinions and only presenting factual information.

Marcela 7/30

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

Yes after looking over the article, the group did make lots of improvements to article and made it more appealing to the eye. The group made sure to complete their requirements they put on their talk page goal/plan section. One thing I would have liked to see more improvement on is the signs and symptom section where they can get more into detail of the different types of rashes and reactions used for diagnosis. I added some detail of how long you would expect certain rashes for example.

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

Yes this group did very well in achieving its overall goals for improvement, as listed on the talk page. As mentioned in its Foundations goals completed their checklist of items. But I still think they can add more detailed to treatment and diagnosis as the articles they have referenced has really good data and details they can elaborate on and explain further to improve the article.

3. & 3c. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? [explain]

The article does reflect a neutral point of view by not being biased and choosing sides as they give us several sources from different sites that show very neutral facts and details. The edits are consistent with Wikipedia's style of editing as it includes Article titles, images with reference so it's not copyrighted, Headings, Bolded lead sections, Numbers and dates are shown, and consistently use a single citation style within an article.

Caitlyn (caitlynaryan)

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

Yes, the article felt well organized and flowed well when reading. Each section had substantial information with proper citations, and the order of each section made sense and built on the last. The overall language was easy to understand and learn more about Duke's disease.

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

Yes, the group met their goals of 5000 characters and at least 6 sources from each editor. Also, the history section is very in depth and pictures are very helpful when talking about a skin infection. Diagnosis and treatment felt very appropriate to add on and both provided lots of information with proper citations.

3. & 3d. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)

Yes, the article has an overall neutral point of view in the language chosen. No biases were found and the information listed is properly cited. The choice of words generally support diversity, equity, and inclusion. Any person can read this article and be able to understand the information presented and learn and build on the article. For very few instances, lay language may be more helpful for medical terms (ex. malaise) in case people that are not in healthcare read the article. Adding lay language in parentheses would be sufficient to solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitlynaryan (talk • contribs) 05:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)