Talk:Cotton wool spots

	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 Ophthalmology task force.

Image request[edit]

pictures please

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II[edit]

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): SMiry, Mhassan1738, Hsahota, Slosea (article contribs). Peer reviewers: A Lee Express, Rsue23.

— Assignment last updated by A Lee Express (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group 4 Proposed Edits[edit]

update references
improve overall structure: add a section for causes and possible treatments
Expand upon possible causes rather than just listing disease states
update image, properly cite it and confirm copyright
cite more references toward the beginning of the article
hyperlink the medical jargon or explain what it is briefly

SMiry (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group 3 Peer Review[edit]

By @A Lee Express, @M. Navarro Zapiain, @Giovanni Lara, @Rsue23 A Lee Express (talk) 16:25, 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 edits done by the group significantly improve the quality of the article and add much more information and clarity. Sections on causes and treatments were added, as well as expanding on the signs and symptoms. All the sources cited were from journal articles that are verifiable sources. Rsue23 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group has achieved its overall goals as they have succeeded in completing the edits that were proposed in the talk section, including updating photos, hyperlinking medical jargon, and adding additional citations. A possible suggestion for editing could be to move the pathophysiology section further up in the article as it seems slightly misplaced to discuss pathophysiology at the end. Rsue23 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, we agree that the pathophysiology section is better placed up before causes to give some additional insight. The section has now been moved! Slosea (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes, every citation made is easily accessible through the National Library of Medicine and other journals. Examples include references like "Clinical and pathological correlation of cotton wool spots in secondary angle closure glaucoma" which discusses cotton wool spots and offers information as a credible source. Rsue23 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for verifying our citations and emphasizing the credibility of our article! We will continue citing secondary sources as we continue to add more information. SMiry (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The groups edits substantially improve the articles described in the wikipedia peer review “guiding framework”. The edits give much more information about how the disease state occurs, what possible treatments are available, and the diagnosis process for it. Sources used were verifiable and relevant. The group has achieved its goals for improvement. Everything that the group planned to complete was accomplished in a thorough explanation on the article. Edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. Giovanni Lara (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overall, the article represents a well-balanced stand point because the editors mention that cotton wool spots can be affected by underlying disease states (i.e. diabetes, hypertension), as well as, drug interactions like cladribine mentioned on the multiple sclerosis case. I believe this article would be stronger if there were cases that highlighted how cotton wool spots have affected underrepresented groups. Other than that, great job. M. Navarro Zapiain (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback Martha! We will try to look for some cases that reflect underrepresented groups. Hsahota (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"? The article has been significantly improved with great quality. There is in-depth information presented through articles that are verifiable and reliable. The topic is now covered well in each aspect starting with the general disease state and then diving through to explain the causes, the pathophysiology, how it is diagnosed, and how the disease state is treated or managed.A Lee Express (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals of improvement? Yes it seems like there was much improvement and additions to the page that lines up with the proposed edits. There is now an additional section for causes and treatment/management. The cause section is also expanded with great detail that encompasses multiple causes including risk factors and drugs. In addition, there is an expanded pathophysiology section. The image has been updated and medical jargon throughout the article has been hyperlinked.A Lee Express (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3a. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes. The information presented is done mostly with a neutral point of view and listed as facts. There are some sections such as under causes where information presented feels skewed simply due to the low sample size (ie. the case study of the 39 year old female). There is the follow up of the stipulation for discussing it as a possibility just to be more holistic, which helps to balance it out. Otherwise, there does not feel like there is bias in a readthrough of the material.A Lee Express (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. In the literature, few causes were explored beyond broad disease states such as diabetes, hypertension, and autoimmune disorders and were given any more than a cursory attribution to these disease states, so many of the case reports of speculative causes of cotton wool spots are still in their fledging states with small sample sizes. That being said, I do agree that it may not seem like the best idea to include these studies, they are indicative of a potential future direction that research is going for cotton wool spots, especially with the lack of existing literature for the condition. This being said, taking into account your feedback, it would be wise to at least curtail these sections in order not to give the impression that they are of higher importance than they really are or at the very least, section them off into a “future direction” section. Mhassan1738 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group #4 Reference Edits[edit]

Group 4 has reviewed the references and they are now correctly formatted.

SMiry reviewed references #1-6. There were no predatory publishers. Reference #2, #3, #4, and #6 were incorrectly formatted by using the published month and year in the reference. Month was taken out. SMiry (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hsahota reviewed references #7-12 and found no predatory articles. All references were medical journals or textbooks. A few references were formatted incorrectly and were corrected by removing the month they were published. One duplicate citation was removed and combined into citation #5. Hsahota (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slosea reviewed references #13-18 and found no predatory publishers. The month was removed from the date in a few of the citations. The links were all active. Slosea (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mhassan1738 reviewed references #19-24 and found no predatory articles. 2 references were removed, one due to being a duplicate article and the other due to providing redundant information to a more recent reference. All other references were systematic reviews and case reports in medical journals or textbooks. References 20 and 21 had their dates improperly formatted, so these were corrected by changing their dates only to the year that they were published. Mhassan1738 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]