Talk:Umbilical granuloma

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. ---kilbad (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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): Emehrabani, L. Martinez future PharmD, Romaseo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: R. Dela Cruz, UCSF, Dgarza23, Ltordera24.

— Assignment last updated by Smguzman (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 30 Proposed Edits

• Modify the language to replace jargon: editing neonates with newborns & deleting unnecessary medical vocabulary
• Replacing outdated Citations
• Adding images to support content
• Updating definitions
• Adding the following subcategories: cause/diagnosis, signs/symptoms/duration, surgeries/procedures, infection/recurrence risk, drugs/treatment/devices, physiology, anatomy, etymology, prevention, complications

Emehrabani (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 29 Peer Review

Part 1:

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

A. The group has contributed in improving the amount of information available on this article. The succeed in organizing the different sub-topics with different headings and the sub-topics flow nicely with each other, making the article more organized. The lead is also very concise. It may be helpful to link more complicated terms to a wiki definition so that the reader can easily follow along and understand. Additionally, the quality of information is great and easy to understand. It may be beneficial to add more information in areas such as complications. Dgarza23 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your feedback! Ellie and I added relevant hyperlinks to the more complicated terminology. L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. Overall, the article has shown an increased improvement in information. The information is clear and easy to navigate and I feel that it flows quite well starting from the origin, histology, and symptoms, and also providing quick ways to treat and prevent the condition while adding possible complications that may result.Ltordera24 (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

C. The group's edits have substantially improved the article, which previously consisted of only a few sentences and two sub-sections. The group successfully added more information and organization to the article while also improving on previous content. The addition of headings, such as Causes, Signs and Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention, and Complications helps the reader navigate the article. The information added to the article was detailed and helpful at explaining the topic.R. Dela Cruz, UCSF (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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

A. The group has achieved adding definitions, replacing jargon, updating references and adding relevant sub categories (although missing recurrence risk?). By achieving their goals, they have contributed in improving this article. It also would be helpful to add a picture of the condition, which the groups seems to still be working on. I would suggest elaborating on some topics and facts to further strengthen the article for example, why is cooking salt a good treatment? Overall the group does a good job relaying informative material in each sub category. Dgarza23 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! It's a great idea to add in recurrence risk and we'll elaborate more on the why for some of the explanations as well. Emehrabani (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I implemented your suggestions and elaborated on the cooking salt treatment section. We are also working on other sections to further strengthen the article. L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. I believe that the group has shown overall goal improvement in adding relevant articles as well as information to their different categories. I found that the page was easy to navigate for more complicated medical conditions (with links to other Wikipedia pages that helped define the definition). Though no images were added in the end or recurrence risks, it was still overall an informative Wikipedia article that I find that the general public will have an easier time understanding. I believe that most of their goals for improvement have been met.Ltordera24 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

C. The group has succeeded in replacing jargon and removing unnecessary medical vocabulary that can be confusing to the reader. The group has also added citations to sources that are more relevant and up to date. Certain terminology, such as "inflammatory saprophytic microorganisms" are defined and explained clearly. The group successfully added most of the subcategories they proposed, given the short amount of time to work on the article. Lastly, the group can work on adding images to the article. Overall, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. R. Dela Cruz, UCSF (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Part 2:

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

The current draft does reflect a neutral point of view about the topic. There is no language that makes inferences or opinions on the topic. Additionally it is written informatively and straightforward. When the reader is exploring this topic, this article does not give them the impression whether it is a good or bad condition. This group has achieved relaying this material in a neutral and educational fashion. Dgarza23 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

The points that were provided in the article seem to all be cited with decent secondary sources that are available with access to UCSF library. I had no issue backtracking sources to see where they originated from and how the content tied into their points. Additionally, references seem to be correctly sourced and added to their reference pages in the desired format. Some examples include being able to adequately refer back to the original secondary source for histology, and the characteristics of Umbilical Granulomas helped me not only see what they cited but also allowed me to look deeper into the topic as needed on my own accord. However, I did notice that there were places where [citation needed] was present near the end. I would possibly suggest double checking just in case a citation might have been accidentally deleted. But overall, I would agree and say that all points included contained verifiable cited secondary sources that are freely available and as a result achieved adequately.Ltordera24 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Yes, the edits made on the article are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The use of headings and sub-headings (Causes, Signs and Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention, and Complications) keeps the article organized and easy to navigate. The article also has good grammar that aligns with the guidelines. Citations are used appropriately when needed. R. Dela Cruz, UCSF (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

D. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Dgarza23 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the edits seem to adequately reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. Much of the information is free of bias and does not use any non-inclusive terms that could be replaced. Despite the article being mainly focused on the condition itself, I found that they still used more scientific and neutral language that blended itself to be more inclusive for example using the word "neonates." Overall, I believe that diverse, inclusive, and equitable language was overall adequately achieved in this article.Ltordera24 (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References Revision

L.Martinez checked references 1-9.L. Martinez future PharmD (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Emehrabani checked references 21 through 27 for duplications & predatory publishing. None were found. Emehrabani (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)