Talk:Eosinophilic fasciitis

Wiki Education assignment: 2024-25 TCOM WikiMed Period 21

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 March 2025 and 28 March 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgg2025 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Medsong.

— Assignment last updated by Ewingdo 15:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to improve this article. I think it needs some rearranging and would like to expand some sections. I will be looking for references to be added.--Cgg2025 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cgg2025,

Here is my feedback review on your updated article!

Lead: The lead section is pretty comprehensive in introducing the topic without being overtly lengthy, touching on the definition of the condition, symptoms and treatment, however it does exclude some major sections like epidemiology and causes. The lead section also discusses a similar condition in comparison that is not mentioned anywhere else in the body of the article. I feel this can be introduced as a separate section with an introductory sentence in the lead instead. I did appreciate how additional names of the condition was added for clarification.

Content: Content of the article is relevant and discusses major points needed for a medical condition topic such as causes, symptoms, treatment and diagnosis. Epidemiology was a good addition to the article! Nothing is strictly missing, but I feel certain sections could be fleshed out more with details. Example could be criteria/gold standard for diagnosis or complications from the disease and/or treatment if applicable. The article could also mention how this disease compares between acute vs chronic states?

Tone and Balance: Content is neutral and seems factual without heavy bias to one perspective. Perhaps reference whether the treatment is standardized word-wide or is purely from a western standpoint? The epidemiology portion does reference different stats between men and women but does not seem to heavily reference one type of population over another.

Sources and References: Added content is verifiably supported by a reliable, secondary source (review article in an international published journal). Source seems to be thorough, covering topics from pathophysiology to treatment, and is relatively current, having been published in 2019. Notably, the source is published by the Japanese Society of Allergology who encourages the exchange of international authors. While the added content accurately reflects the source, there is potential to include additional information, such as histopathological and examination findings from the source.

Organization: The content is easy to follow and organized into clear sections. I did mention in the lead section how it could be broken down when comparing to another medical condition. I liked how the causes section was broken down into bullet points for an easier read as well. Flow of the article was good. Not much grammatical or spelling errors. However, in the epidemiology section i believe its "slightly more common" not "slight" and the word "prevalence" could have a link attached for better understand from readers.

Images and Media: no additional images were added. Article could be improved with an image of the condition or perhaps a biopsy/pathology image showing the eosinophilia under diagnosis?

Overall impressions: The content added has improved the quality of the article as it mentions relevant information that can be informative and/or clinically significant to a medical condition topic. The information added is easy to read even to a non-medical professional. However, some major sections of the article can be improved with additional details and information, particularly the diagnosis and treatment sections. Medsong (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)