So if this were an actual disease or condition, here are comments (but see below)
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
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):
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):
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)
@ 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)
@ 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
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)
MRoidt3 ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
So if this were an actual disease or condition, here are comments (but see below)
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
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):
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):
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)
@ 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)
@ 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
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)
MRoidt3 ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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