Talk:Mallory–Weiss syndrome

Foundations 2 2024, Group 16 Goals

Our goals for this article include:

• Add more information on diagnosis and explanation of the procedure
• Add more signs and symptoms
• Add more information on risk factors and treatment
• Add more images
• Add more information on the history of Mallory-Weiss syndrome
• Add cases from medical providers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlam16 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Jdlam16 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Question 1. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

Question 2. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

· Person A (Alisa) answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

· Person B (Will) answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain]

1. I think that the groups edits did substantially improve the article. I think that each section was well detailed and was coherent. It flowed smoothly and described the syndrome well.
2. They did meet their overall goal for improvement. There was a picture that was added and so they have finished all of their goals.
3. Yes all the claims that were included had citations that were freely available on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W. La, Future UCSF PharmD (talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

· Person C (Hannah) answers: Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? [explain]

1. The group's edits did greatly improve the article. The article is broken down into sections that organize all the information and make it easier to digest. For example, under the "Treatment" section, it is really helpful to see a bulleted list of different treatment options available for people with this syndrome.
2. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. A picture was inserted in the very beginning to help illustrate what people with this syndrome may have, many more signs and symptoms were included, and several more risk factors and treatments were added. The "History" section of the article was also greatly added to, and a suggestion could be to move the "History" section towards the top of the article.
3. The format of the edits are very consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. There are clear, large section headings before each section that do not include any external links. There are no apostrophes or contractions which also contribute to the article's professionalism, and lastly, the article is written overall in an informative voice as opposed to a biased voice.

· Person D (Jade) answers: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain] Alisakoay (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the group's edits improve the article because it expands on information previously written about mallory-weiss syndrome. For example, in the first sentence defining what mallory-weiss syndrome is, mallory-weis syndrome was defined as "bleeding from a laceration in the mucosa at the junction of the stomach and esophagus" but after edits from this group, it became "a condition where high intra-abdominal pressures causes laceration and bleeding of the mucosa". This gives more in depth information for readers hoping to learn more about this condition. The edits also substantially expand on the signs and symptoms of mallory-weiss syndrome, adding a large paragraph for additional context.
2. They do achieve some of their goals for improvement but not all of them yet. They have not added more images but have completed the rest of their goals.

3(A). Yes, the draft reflects a neutral point of view as they take into consideration multiple published research articles even when they conflict with each other as seen in the second paragraph of "Causes" citing "conflicting data".

- Alisa Koay (7/27/24) Alisakoay (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the group's edits significantly improved the Wikipedia article, adhering well to the "Guiding framework" for peer reviews. The authors enhanced the overall quality by adding more context, providing readers with a deeper understanding of the topic. This additional context included background information, explanations of key concepts, and details about the implications and significance of the disease, which were previously lacking or underdeveloped. In addition, the group made efforts to incorporate reliable sources, ensuring that the information presented is accurate and verifiable. By doing so, the authors not only strengthened the credibility of the article but also adhered to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability.
2. Yes the group did reach their goal for improvement adding more context to the disease, sign, symptoms, treatment, and risk factors. The group improved the structure and organization of the article, creating a more streamlined and coherent presentation. This reorganization helped to make the content more accessible and reader friendly.
3. (D) Yes, the language used were neutral and professional, creating an inclusive space when addressing a disease.

Jlaguer (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)