User talk:MKoehler/sandbox

Notes

So if this were an actual disease or condition, here are comments (but see below)

sections are OK per MEDMOS
Language is not OK per MEDMOS (we don't talk about "patients" - please remove every instance of "patient")
There is research mixed up in the various sections. Please put research in the Research section, which should focus on broad trends or important lines of research. The stuff about clinical trials does not belong in the Treatment section. Treatment is for actual treatment given to actual people with the condition.
Soucing which is all important:
- These are fine per MEDRS: PMID 28230061, PMID 27884168, PMID 20301790, two 2 Genetics Home Reference citations
- I cannot tell what these two are:
  - http://search.proquest.com/docview/199047172/C45726D4E48C4B1CPQ/12?accountid=100
  - https://search.proquest.com/docview/199014814?accountid=100
- the others are not acceptable. Don't use them as they are primary sources.
The sources are not inline so I cannot tell how much of the content is valid summaries of MEDRS sources and how much is not. Please use inline citations. See below on how to easily add citations.

However this is not a disease or condition, but a class of diseases. I do not support treating a class of diseases like it is itself a disease; this is bad "meta-editing" where this article will say one thing, and any of the articles about specific diseases in the class might say something else. I am sorry you took this on as an assignment as your edits are probably not going to stick. I will raise an inquiry at WT:MED about this; perhaps others will think differently

Formatting and adding citations

Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open -- you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom, and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMC 3955328. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion opened at WT:MED here Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

@MKoehler, Danimcclo, and BMehall: I'm not sure what your target is here. You refer both to Phakomatosis and to Neurofibromatosis. Which article are you proposing to expand? Please let me know. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian (Wiki Ed): We would like to expand Phakomatosis. The article currently has 8 different examples of Phakomatosis, one being Neurofibromatosis. We took four of the examples and combined them together to give an explanation to what Phakomatosis is using these four. MKoehler (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)MKoehler[reply]

Secondary review

Summary can be added at the beginning of the page so readers can have a quick look and get a general idea of what phakamatosis is. For 'signs and symptoms' section, adding an introductory paragraph would be better so readers would know editors are referring the skin or other aspects of signs. It is also recommended to exchange the order of cause and signs. It helps guiding readers to read the article logically, from the cause of phakamatosis, possible signs and diagnosis of the disease. Overall, it is a descent article. Alice0iris (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary review

Overall, the article is well written and provides a wide range of facts regarding the various issues that can arise in people with phakomatosis-related disorders. While the sentence structure and grammar is overall well done, the constant repetition of the different disease names gets confusing and hard to follow. Better organization of the page as a whole could help eliminate some of this repetitiveness. There are also some run-on sentences throughout the article, specifically when listing symptoms and treatments. Picking out some of the most important ones to include or splitting the list into two sentences could help improve readability.
The sources I looked at appear to be solid, secondary sources. I looked closer at source 4, Ataxia telangiectasia: a review. While this source was mainly focused on just one of the diseases you aimed to highlight in your page, you accurately used and cited the information obtained from this source. However, the source went into much more detail than some of your descriptions. While that extent of detail isn’t necessary, adding a bit more additional information may help the article flow better.
The information you chose to include in your page gave a good, general overview of the different diseases/disorders you chose to highlight. From your comments to Ian, I understood that your main goal was to delve more specifically into four of the diseases. While this goal was successfully completed, addition of a little more detail may really help readers understand the diseases.
The article as a whole is neutral and does not appear to contain any opinions or biases.
n/a
Great job including a variety of images in your article. They really help to explain some of the symptoms associated with the various diseases. One thing I would alter is the wording on is the CT scan image. Make sure to change patient to person as another user had you change this already throughout the article.

Other points:

I would add an introduction paragraph prior to jumping right into talking about symptoms and the rest of your information. This can be as short as a few sentences giving a little bit of background on your page topic as a whole as well as some quick facts on the disorders.
On an organizational note, I think you could better present the information by splitting your sections into different diseases and providing the specifics below the disease heading. I think changing the organization could also improve the overall flow of the article by allowing a natural transition between topics associated with the same disease. This may help reduce the choppiness and help make your points more clear.
A number of your citations look as though they need some updating/corrections. Specifically 1, 3, 4, and 9. Also be sure to include footnote citations throughout the entire piece. There are a number of points made with no citations.
I really like the epidemiology portion of your page. Regardless of whether or not you organize the page differently, providing the information somewhere is a great addition.
There are a number of words throughout your article in which additional WikiLinks could be provided. For example, you can link different inheritance patterns to the corresponding Wikipedia page.

MRoidt3 (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your constructive feedback. We have changed the organization of our page to hopefully alleviate some of the choppiness as best as possible. There is an introduction paragraph on our actual page that we are going to keep and will move into the sandbox for everyone to see. We have reformatted the references and are working on adding more citations throughout the article. We have also added more links throughout the page to make it more helpful for the reader to find out more information in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmeyer517 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review

Overall the article has a lot of detailed information covering many topics. A more defined definition of what Phakatomatosis is would be helpful in understanding the overlap between the four conditions described in the article. I think the pictures are very helpful in the signs and symptoms section and work as a good aid to what is being described.

3604weberk (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review

Be sure to ensure that the scientific vocabulary and diseases are linked to an article that explains what it is. The images were a nice touch to help people get an idea of what the disorders appear to be. Be cautious on switching from one disease to the other. I was easily confused with which disease you were referring to in the article. To help prevent confusion maybe make a table comparing the diseases. Jpeagles (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Student Review

1. For the most part, this was a well written article that covers a lot of information and acts as a sort of umbrella to cover other topics. I would agree with the other primary reviewer in that the constant transitions from one disease to the next does cause a lot of confusion for the reader in trying to keep track of what disease is being talked about currently, as well as what effects or symptoms pertains to what disease. Again, some of this confusion can be alleviated with some reorganization.

2. The source I inspected (Source #1), the information utilized from the article is cited correctly and accurately and does not seem plagiarized in anyway. However, this is appears to be a primary research source, and I am unsure it can even be used in your article.

3. I think by offering a more clear and descriptive definition of Phakomatosis(es) the objective of the article will be more clear. Knowing that you're trying to increase understanding of several different diseases, the information offered gave good insight into each individual disease. Another way to increase understanding for each individual disease would be to hyperlink each disease to their respective wikipage. That way, any reader can look deeper into whatever disease they are most interested in.

4. The article appears neutral and does not appear to contain any bias or conflicting attitudes

5. N/A

6. There was good use of images to depict some of the hallmarks of the diseases covered in the article. I thought it was a nice addition to have a visual representation next to the descrption of a symptom.

To go with what the other primary reviewer said, I like the idea of breaking down the article into the four diseases and then explaining each other following the structure you've already laid out in your article. This would eliminate the jumping between diseases as well as the confusion in keeping track of all diseases at the same time. Also, like I said before, I think it would be pretty beneficial to hyperlink each individual disease at the start of the signs and symptoms section. A lead paragraph that identifies the diseases covered would also be helpful.

Rschocke (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback on our article! We took into consideration what you agreed on with the other primary review and tried organizing our article better when transitioning from disease to disease to make it less confusing. We specifically worked a lot on the signs and symptoms subheading. We also reviewed our sources and changed the first one so that it wouldn't be a primary source. We actually have the original introduction paragraph on the Phakomatoses page that we will be keeping and adding to our sandbox as a part of our article. Once again, thank you for the constructive feedback!

Primary Review

Overall the article is well written and is easy to read. As the other primary review stated, I do suggest adding a lead paragraph and a history section to give the reader more background on this disorder before jumping into the signs and symptoms. This lead paragraph could clear up some of the confusion between the different diseases talked about in the rest of the article. As the above primary reviewers stated, the constant transition between diseases in the different sections is confusing and reorganizing the article would help. I agree with what the other two primary reviewers said about the layout of the article. I think it would be helpful if each diseases was broken into its own subsection under each of the headings so that the reader can clearly see how the signs/symptoms and causes/mechanisms relate to the individual disease.
For in text citations, I would suggest putting in links for all of the diseases (Ataxia Telangiectasia, Sturge-Weber Syndrome, Tuberous Sclerosis, and Neurofibromatosis) so readers can look at more background if they would like to. Under the skeletal section of Signs and Symptoms, i believe that the last sentence needs a medical source to avoid possible plagiarism/copyright issues. Same applies to the last sentence of the Cause and mechanism section. There seems to be an error in the citing formate for references 1, 3, 4, and 9. The specific source I looked at was source 5. From the abstract, the source appears to be a good and reliable secondary source that has been properly cited in the reference section. There also needs to be a heading for the reference section.
Again I believe that a lead paragraph would help with the overall understanding of the of the main focus of the article. The article does however, stay focused and avoids any unnecessary information.
There is no bias in the article and the information presented about the topic is neutral
N/A
I believe that the images used in the article are helping in the fact that they give clear visuals of some of the symptoms talked about in relation to the disorders.

Overall, I like the use of the four disorders to discuss Phakomatoses. It gave nice insight to the different aspects of the diseases and how it effects patients. I do believe that a lead paragraph is necessary to give the reader more background on Phakomatoses and help to clear up any confusion. This is also an opportunity to introduce the four diseases a little bit more clearly so the reader can better understand what they are reading.

Hondaporsh24 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! We are planning on keeping the original lead paragraph from the article, which we have yet to move over to the sandbox, but thank you for that reminder. We are also going to begin with a list of examples and aim to clear up the organization in the sections so they are easier to follow per disease. We are going to add those links to the diseases and we fixed the citation issues with them. Also, we forgot about the heading to the reference section so that was a good call, thanks! MKoehler (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)MKoehler[reply]

Primary Review

Overall well written, but could probably benefit from another look over. Some sentences could be structured better and appear a bit wordy. Structurally i'm not sure if it makes sense to include all information about these 4 diseases under this one article rather than their own separate articles. At the very least breaking each symptom into a subheading of the disease you are describing rather than listing them all in a single paragraph would help reduce confusion. Article could also benefit from a lead paragraph.
I looked at source 2. This source was cited properly and is a good secondary source that provided a broader overview of the disease Ataxia Telangiectasia. This source does not go into great detail about a lot of the areas you planned to investigate for each disease so it is good that more specific sources were drawn upon to supplement.
I thought this article went into just enough detail about each disease to be too specific at times for an overview of the class of diseases as a whole, but not enough detail to adequately cover each if they were their own articles. Some areas of each disease go into way more detail than other aspects of the same disease, or than the same aspect of different diseases. Bringing all to the same level of detail would help balance the article a little more.
No issues with neutrality
N/A
Good use of images to illustrate symptoms and diagnostics. Might be helpful to add an image of a normal brain CT scan next to the Sturge-Weber one, or CT scans of the other diseases if you can find them and add them without taking up too much space on the page.

Definitely would recommend at least restructuring article to have diseases as main headings and go through symptoms, diagnosis, etc as subheadings for each. Would probably be best to make each disease into its own page, or to simplify description of each and have a section talking more about the class of diseases as a whole and tying the examples to that instead.

Kyle.mckibben (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! We have taken the advice of many of the primary reviewers in restructuring our article to make it flow better. We have hopefully made it more clear to the reader what exactly we are talking about by providing subheadings with the disease names under each heading. We are also actively working on each reading through the article to eliminate any grammatical errors and run-on sentences that would take away from the information we are presenting. We had planned on using the introductory paragraph that was on the original article, but are moving it to the sandbox so that it can be viewed by everyone in conjunction with the parts that we have written ourselves. I think that the CT scan comparisons are a great idea and we will be sure to look into adding them into our page. Thanks again for your helpful feedback! BMehall (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

secondary review

This is really well done. The only suggestions I would have are first just moving that first paragraph out of the signs and symptoms section and above to the main intro portion. When I personally wiki diseases or other scientific terms, the intro is the first place I look for a general synopsis and currently yours is just in the slightly wrong location. The only other thing I would suggest is adding hyperlinks to the other major diseases and scientific terms you use. People probably would find it more helpful to have the link for "Ataxia Telangiectasia" than "birthmark." Other than that, I think all of the thoughts were very well organized. mwelch1990 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

secondary review 2

The information is very well put and easy to read. The structure is great as well as the grammar. I would suggest incorporating a introduction summarizing the article points or in general summarizing what phakamatoses is prior to the detailed information. If possible, I would also add the pros and cons of treatments options (chemotherapy and radiation). Great job working with a difficult topic. --DKS7623 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review

Just a quick formatting suggestion. Please make sure the words that are not names in the names of the diseases are not capitalized. Also, link the diseases you mention to the wiki pages that do exist. One last thing, try and reorganize the signs and symptoms section to make it more easily readable. Either break it down further or combine sections to increase organization. --WithersM (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Editing Thoughts

At the conclusion of this project, we felt we accurately captured the differences and similarities between four of the eight examples of Phakomatosis. We divided the article up into different sections with subsections under each. This was done to avoid confusion between the examples while maintaining the easily accessible comparison. We decided the keep the intro that the original article had and added it to this page. We hope our expansion of Phakomatosis helped further understanding of this condition. MKoehler (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)MKoehler[reply]