Talk:Rheumatoid nodule

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Rheumatoid nodule.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Szhang0216, W.chang UCSF, TChan9, Kanwar, future UCSF pharmD. Peer reviewers: Lrambaran, E Tsou, Rasaeed, Hpark1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group 25 Peer Review

1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the article has a cohesive order of topics that walks the reader through a rheumatoid nodule and how to diagnosis and treat it. The lead section is easy to understand and provides a good summary, definition, and background for the reader. There is also a clear structure with appropriate headers, as well as balanced coverage of all of the subsections and provides neutral, unbiased material. The article heavily references reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journals and databases such as Up to Date that is written by medical professionals.

2) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group achieved their goal of adding citations to the initial version and added sections on pathology, prevalence, pathophysiology, and diagnosis. However, more data could be added to the treatment section to achieve their goal.

Suggestions:

Add a "see also" section to direct the reader to similar topics
Provide an image of how a nodule looks on the skin to the naked eye - multiple images with different skin tones
How a nodule can be identified by a non-medical professional (if possible)
Diagnosis section - who is doing the diagnosis? What type of physician would treat and diagnose this?

Lrambaran (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Lrambaran--E Tsou (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Hpark1 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)hpark1 Rasaeed (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Rsaeed[reply]

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

The article reflects a neutral point of view as it does not take a stand in a specific perspective. Phrases that can be suggestive of a particular stance or give off a positive or negative connotation are not used. Additionally, there are no claims made on behalf of unnamed groups, which aids in keeping the article neutral and unbiased. The article maintains the neutral tone throughout the page. Hpark1 (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)hpark1[reply]

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...

The group has 25 sources that that they cited throughout the Wikipedia page. They used a mixture of various resources, from journals, case reports, reviews, and UptoDate.com. The resources are easily found and available online, allowing readers to verify the material shared. They cited reviews which are a form of a secondary resource, adding to their credibility. Rasaeed (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Rsaeed[reply]

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

In the prevalence section, the word "patients" is used several times when describing those who have the medical condition. In the beginning summary section the word "cases" when describing those who have the medical condition. The word "cases" is also used in the prevalence section. These are signs of writing or editing for (other) healthcare professionals. Could change the word patients to individuals. --E Tsou (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation based on a random sampling of the citations and comparison to the added material. Lrambaran (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Lrambaran[reply]

Needs pictures of nodules as seen upon examination

Foundations II 2020 Group [26] proposed edits

We will be fleshing out the article and adding citations as listed below.
This includes the section on the pathology portion which currently has zero citations.
More data would be beneficial in the treatment section as well, flushing it out.
Add in a section on prevalence, pathophysiology, and diagnosis

Kanwar, future UCSF pharmD (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]