Talk:Sucking blister

	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.
	This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R.ibrahim.2, Dnguyen15, Xpham, Laurathuynh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wxia1, Alfafarad, Wlancenc, R.FouladiChami.

— Assignment last updated by Alfafarad (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group Sucking Blister Proposed Edits

Add signs and symptoms section. Add pathophysiology section. Add diagnosis section. Add treatment section.

R.ibrahim.2 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After searching on Pubmed database, and other textbook for pediatrics, we found that there are limited secondary resources for this rare condition, thus the cited primary resource as well as clinical studies and case report will be used for this article. We predict that the future editors will contribute some source of information when more secondary resources become available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpham (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

References 2 and 19 were duplicates; we consolidated any citations in the text to citation 2. R.ibrahim.2 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC) R.ibrahim.2 checked references 1-8. R.ibrahim.2 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

laurathuynh checked references 9-16 Laurathuynh (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dnguyen15 checked references 17-24. Dnguyen15 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

xpham checked references 25-30. Xpham (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews from Group 25

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

Group 26 edits have substantially improved the article, which only had one line definition of the term as the lead. They did a great job of structuring their article in a clear and easy to follow way. They had great usage of layman terms while explaining their assigned disease. Their content is neutral and since they only had access to limited data regarding the subject matter, they used a lot of reliable primary sources that had some patient cases related to the disease at hand.

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

While the group did a lot of improvement upon previous work, there is still room for improving the lead, adding links to other article for some specific terms (which would better help understand the subject), and finishing on other contents that they mentioned in their talk page, such as prevention or screening section and outcomes or prognosis section.

3a. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The current draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. There are no opinions stated as fact, and the way that is written reflects in an informative way, and found no bias to any particular point of view. R.FouladiChami (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. We will add to the lead section. I added about a dozen or so links to relevant wikipedia pages throughout this article, which will help fill in any knowledge gaps for our readers. I deleted the content that was previously mentioned in our talk page that we didn't include like prevention and prognosis because these are sections we initially thought should be included, but there is no relevant sources for these sections. R.ibrahim.2 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overall, Group 26 did a good job in expanding the article by adding more headings and images under the disease. Here are some comments and/or suggestions for improvement: LEAD: The lead section only contains the introductory sentence that concisely describes what the condition is. It can be expanded by including a brief summary of the article's sections so that readers have a general idea of the article's layout. This may also be something that is updated last after the completion of the article's body. CONTENT: The article contains relevant sections such as signs and symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and case reports (since there is limited secondary sources). Each section is relatively balanced. Some sections such as signs and symptoms contain content that is based on sources from before 2000, but this is understandable given the lack of new information. ORGANIZATION: Overall structure of the article is well organized and logical. I would consider moving the 'Clinical studies and case reports' section to the end. The organization in 'Diagnosis' can be improved since it seems like there are two paragraphs that contain repeated information. There are no glaring grammatical or spelling errors. IMAGES: First image is relevant and helpful as an example that demonstrates what the condition is. Caption appropriately describes the image. Diagram is helpful in summarizing diagnosis. It can be moved to the 'diagnosis' section.

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

Yes, Group 26 has achieved its overall goals in expanding the article by adding relevant sections on the condition such as signs and symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Other sections that were mentioned but not present in the article (prevention/screening, outcomes/prognosis) may be a work in progress or there may be insufficient sources.

3b. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes, the claims are appropriately cited with linked sources. Most sources are not secondary sources, given the limited number of sources available after performing a literature search. However, sources are from textbooks on pediatrics/neonatal and dermatologic conditions. Other sources are from journals such as European Journal of Pediatrics. 'Clinical studies and case reports' section sources are taken from primary literature, which is appropriate. Most of these sources are accessible via pubmed.gov or through NIH database.

Wxia1 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! We will definitely try to add to the LEAD section and include more references as well. We'll remove redundant info from the diagnosis section and add the chart there as well. We tried to include as many secondary sources that we could find, but like you said, they were quite limited. We will make adjustments to the case report section and move it accordingly.

Dnguyen15 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Considering that they only started with a single sentence on the article, this group surely substantially improved this article. The headings are well organized and make sense for this topic. The information is written in neutral language and always cited. Something that should be considered is information originating from older sources and verifying those against more recent studies. Those from before 2000 (reference numbers 3, 5, 19) should definitely be updated. Another spot that could use improvement is the lead, which is the same one sentence that originally composed of the entire article and does not reflect the changes made thus far.

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

Looking at their first comment on the talk page, I would say that they achieved their goals of improvement. Each section they desired was added with comprehensive information on the topic.

3c. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

In terms of structure and relevant information, this group's edits are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine related articles. There is room for improvement on writing style, which could be worded more generally for a wider audience.

Alfafarad (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. We will be updating the lead to have it resemble the changes made in the article. We can update the references to more recent data where applicable. Since there were limited sources, we may keep the old references, but let the reader know it is a little outdated. We will take a look over all the parts again to make sure the writing style is better for a wider audience. Laurathuynh (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The article in itself does an excellent job at following the peer review "Guiding Framework." Everything is written cohesively and there are sufficient references and articles to support their statements! Some areas of improvement for this article would be wording and paraphrasing some lines. Reading this from a colleague's perspective some phrases sounds a lot like reiteration and repetition. For example, under the heading of "Signs and Symptoms" the last portion after the first paragraph, "...which means it is not usually harmful" I know that this is intended to elaborate on what benign means, but I feel like paraphrasing it differently would benefit the tone and structure of the paragraph as a whole. Additionally, while the contents and details are impeccably written, I think rearranging headings would benefit the flow of the article. Possibly moving pathophysiology prior to the case studies and case reports; just to have a better understanding behind the cases and having a chance to apply the newfound knowledge of the previous heading.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Reading what the group has wanted to achieve as their goals for improving this article, I believe that they have succeeded. They were able to implement new subheadings and support these subheadings with various articles they found. The flow of the article over all was good ad the sustenance provided was concise but very well executed; as articles should be.

3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? Some of the edits do need to reflect more inclusive language, unless directly sourcing it from a reference. There are some instances in the case study portions where gender is mentioned, and can possibly be changed to be more inclusive. There is multiple uses of "baby xx" in the article, but unless the gender is crucial for statistical analysis, a suggestion would be to maintain unnecessary gendering norms as "newborns" or simply infants.

Wlancenc (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions of rearranging the heading and the use of language. We will be editing and updating the change for the structure of heading as well as the suggestion of using a general norms instead of specifically indicating baby gender. Xpham (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]