Talk:Sanfilippo syndrome

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-020-00226-z https://curesanfilippofoundation.org/worldsanfilippoawarenessday/. 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 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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): A. Shahbazi1, Cbtrinh, Dphan2, Ybramos, Htran2026 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Akaguhi, Vivle, Shahrin.islam.ucsf, J.pham, UCSF Future PharmD.

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

Proposed Editing Plan:

1. Add more details/reformat wording to the signs and symptoms section

2. Cite sources for treatment and include more treatments

3. Cite more data for epidemiology

4. Add more information for the prognosis

5. Expand on history with more sources on how it was discovered / came to be

Proposed Editing Plan 2024

- add citations/references

- reword and add details (with a strong focus on the first 8 sections) the article

Cbtrinh (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations 2: Peer Review from Group 13

Peer review comments:

Justin Pham: Question 1: The group’s edits substantially improved the article. Originally blank without much description, has now been edited into an article with sufficient information including but not limited to: Signs and Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, etc. Question 2: They also achieved its overall goals for improvement. Initial goal was to develop a wikipedia page sufficient from the original to provide information in lay-mans terms to non medical professionals and it does well in this goal. Question 3: In regard to language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion, it does meet this goal/guideline. It reflects a neutral tone that does not induce bias or persuasion towards one side of a story. And it includes supportive language that best support the article so no problems identified. Great job!

Vivian Le: Question 1: The group's article has greatly improved following their edits. They added a lot of information that provided more depth to their research article. Question 2: The group achieved their overall goals for improvement. They were able to greatly expand on the history of the syndrome and where it came from, as well as added a lot more details on the signs, symptoms, treatments, and other categories in the article. Question 3: The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. There is no clear bias in the article. For example, in the treatment section, they state that some of the treatments are only beneficial in early stages of the disease. They are not trying to persuade the reader that these treatments are guaranteed to work.

Shahrin Islam: Question 1: Yes, the article provides extensive detail on the genetics, treatment, signs and symptoms of the disease, while highlighting and contrasting the different subtypes. The editors provided useful and reliable sources with reputable journals and medical websites. The article maintains neutrality throughout by presenting factual information without implying bias. The article is also well organized with the appropriate headers and topics. Question 2: Yes. The editors provided detailed and accurate information about the topic, improving the overall quality of the article. They added numerous reputable sources to back their claims and information added while adding information to inform users about the disease. The addition of graphics and tables heightens the article as well. One thing to note is to stay consistent when addressing Sanfilippo syndrome, as sometimes the name switches to MPS III or other names within the same paragraph, which can make it confusing for the reader. Question 3C: Yes, the article displays clear headings with an appropriate flow from the introduction, signs and symptoms, genetics, mechanism, diagnosis, treatment, to other topics such as epidemiology and caregiver impact. These additional topics shed light on the disease in a different perspective rather than focusing on the science alone, which is beneficial to the reader. Citations and references are appropriately added and consistent. Shahrin.islam.ucsf (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Antonnette Kaguhi: Question 1: The group's edits substantially improve the article and seem to align with the group's proposed plan. There is more detail and citations in the signs and symptoms section. There is also more detail and options in the treatment sections. The sources are reliable and maintain a neutral point of view, which means the article doesn't seem to have bias. It is well organized and easy to follow along as one reads about Sanfilippo Syndrome. Question 2: According to their original plan, the group was able to add more information and citations to achieve what was planned. The sources provide more data on epidemiology, signs and symptoms, treatments, and prognosis. They also provided more information on the history. With this, it is fair to say that the groups' goals were achieved. The tables are also a good source and make understanding easier. Question 3b: The claims included throughout the article are verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available. The authors included citations throughout the article which makes it easier to find more information on a particular topic if needed. References are well arranged and easily accesible. Overall the article is easy to read and understand and provides great sources for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaguhi (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.pham, UCSF Future PharmD (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)