Talk:Prepubertal hypertrichosis

	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) 17:25, 11 April 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): Kdang0927, Stephdly, Noriellerosario, CNakamura17 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nelbershawi.

— Assignment last updated by Nelbershawi (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kdang0927 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Potential headings: - signs and symptoms - causes - mechanism/pathophysiology - diagnosis - treatment - epidemiology[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group 18

Proposed edits:

Add section on treatment strategies

Add section on diagnosis of prepubertal hypertrichosis

Clarify difference between hirsutism (androgen dependent) and hypertrichosis (androgen independent)

Add section on signs and symptoms

Add section on mechanism/pathophysiology

Add section on case studies

Add pictures

Remove hair growth vitamin Amazon citation and replace with appropriate citation

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

Not many reviews on prepubertal hypertrichosis, so we are drawing information from multiple case studies.

Stephdly (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group 17 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]

Person A - Yes, Group 18 contributed a significant amount of new information, clearly organized into relevant categories. The group did a great job explaining various medical terms in easy-to-understand terms, however, I would suggest adding more wikilinks to the first half of the article if applicable (lead, signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, classification). I also noticed that the lists of information under mechanisms and classification takes up a large amount of visual space, perhaps these could be summarized into a table to allow more balance between section lengths. Coshita46 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Person B - Yes, Group 18 did a great job following the Guiding Framework. One opportunity to improve the article is within the causes section of this article, there is a box on the right side that would be great to have completed. This box is a nice way for the people reading this article to have "at a glance" information. Information that would be great to be included is: other names for the disease/condition, medical specialty (hypertrichosis appears to me to be under dermatology), symptoms, causes, and diagnostic method. In addition, I believe adding an image to this page of Prepubertal hypertrichosis would add value to this articles as well. After looking at images of this condition, I was very curious to know about the epidemiology statistics for this condition and believe that would be a great addition to the article. I found that the group's inclusion of medication induced causes of hypertrichosis to be very beneficial. Within the vaccination and cast application section, the start of those sentences can be capitalized. Sschneider2 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2022

Person C: Yes, group 18 did a great job so far in creating detailed sections that thoroughly describe what prepubertal hypertrichosis is. I particularly found that the “causes” section provided a lot of useful information that readers will find helpful. Additionally, I liked the writers' use of inclusive language throughout the article, especially when talking about pregnant mothers. One suggestion I have for the article overall would be to add some tables in some of the sections that have long lists, as this may be easier to navigate and provides some structured space for further clarification such as adding a picture and/or description of the different hair types, genetic conditions, etc. Additionally, I’m not sure how much research is available on how medications may cause or contribute to this condition, but I’d be interested to see if a section can be added that mentions any known or hypothesized mechanisms for how certain classes of medication may cause prepubertal hypertrichosis. Kaileync (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Person D: Group 18 has significantly contributed to this article, and they did an exceptional job by adding a robust body to the article and extremely detailed sections that address the main questions surrounding this disease and being highly structured in their article organization. I think an opportunity for improving this article would be to refine some of the bulleted lists found throughout the text. Some can be reorganized into tables, but the lists under the "Classification" section can also be reformatted into complete sentences instead. I would also suggest maybe adding more detail about how prepubertal hypertrichosis specifically differs from hirsutism, since the difference is mentioned but no specific details are provided. Nelbershawi (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Person A: Yes, with the exception of the addition of images, Group 18 has achieved their goals as outlined on the talk page. To add onto these improvements, they may consider updating the lead section to reflect their added information and clear explanations. Coshita46 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Person B, Yes, Group 18 has achieved most of their overall goals for improvement based on their Talk page discussion. The opportunities for improvement based on their talk page discussion include: adding a photo. I also think that it could be useful for the group to split their management and treatment sections up into individual sections. That way it is very easy for the reader to distinguish between what their options are for management of hypertrichosis and what their pharmacologic options are for treatment of hypertrichosis. I believe that readers will really appreciate that the distinctions between hirsutism (androgen dependent) and hypertrichosis (androgen independent) were made as well. Sschneider2 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Person C: Yes, it looks like Group 18 is making steady progress towards their goals outlined in the “talk” section of their article. One area of improvement that I imagine is still in progress includes adding some images to the article. I believe once this is completed it will help strengthen the description of the differences between hirsutism and prepubertal hypertrichosis. Kaileync (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Person D: Yes, this group definitely has made major headway towards the goals they have listed. I think the addition of images will strongly improve this article, as well as the proposed section on case studies, both of which I believe will shed more light on this disease and provide more context for the body of information. Nelbershawi (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

* Person A answers: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]

Group 18 has done a great job to present the information in an objective manner throughout the article. One portion I noticed that may need edits: the “Pathophysiology” section included language, “more research is needed” and “it is important to be aware of this possible side effect“. This language may be interpreted as an author’s own stance (even though many would probably agree). Alternatively, the group could consider removing these statements and expressing only that “there is limited research”, or “these possible side effects exist” to then allow the reader to develop their own stance on the information. Coshita46 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overall, the group did a great job with their use of sources that are widely accessible. I appreciated that the group was able to use sources from textbooks and also was able to pull information from case studies. I also appreciated the insertion of the Vaniqa package insert link.

The following sources were not easily accessible:

Source 1 Dermatology: 2-Volume Set: I appreciate that the group was able to identify a source from a textbook. When attempting to access the textbook information by following the link, it was not accessible from the citation as there was no PMID or DOI listed. I had to put the ISBN into a google search. I'm not sure if there is a webpage link that could be added, but that would be appreciated.

Source 20 Neinstein LS (2008): No PMID or DOI was given and no link to article.

Source 21 - rarediseases.info.nih.gov: This source lists other names for prepubertal hypertrichosis such as: Congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa; Hypertrichosis lanuginosa universalis; Hypertrichosis universalis. If these are other names for the disease it could be beneficial to list them in the box in the top right corner of the article under other names.

[[User:Sschneider2|Sschneider2](talk) 17:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, overall the article follows the guidelines outlined in the manual of style. Group18 has done a great job at maintaining neutral language throughout the article and clearly labels all sections in a manner that organizes the separated content. One thing I did notice while reading the article, however, is that some medical terms lack some clarification/description that some readers may find difficult to understand. For example, some readers may not understand the words “androgen” and “testosterone”. My suggestion would be to either add a description of the word or link the word to another Wiki article that provides a description. Kaileync (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Person D answers: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

Yes, the language used throughout the article is highly inclusive, and I appreciate the attention and care devoted to discussing the impact of this disease on mental health, as well as the considerations this article includes for pregnant mothers. I believe group 18 did a great job of representing the multi-faceted nature of this disease and its implications, and they used inclusive yet neutral language to do so. Nelbershawi (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sschneider2 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2022 Group 18 Response to Peer Review

Fixed the capitalization errors. CNakamura17 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed some of the wording in the pathophysiology section with more neutral language to remove points that could have been bias. Noriellerosario (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Norielle Rosario 8/1/2022[reply]

Added hyperlinks to medical words in the causes section to help with clarity and provide background information in cause they were unfamiliar with that word. Noriellerosario (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Norielle Rosario 8/1/2022[reply]

Overall, the peer reviews were positive with minimal suggestions for improvement. There were a few suggestions that I did not apply such as epidemiology statistics (because that information is unavailable) and illustrating the difference between hirsutism and hypertrichosis with photos ( because the difference between the two conditions are on a microbiological level rather than physical level). Some suggestions lead to additional edits included adding a photo of the condition(although there were not many good photos to choose from) and adding relevant wikilinks where appropriate to allow for a better understanding of certain topics. Kdang0927 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional hyperlinks to less familiar terms such as chemical compounds, medical conditions, and symptoms. CNakamura17 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added information to the "at a glance" box on the right side of the article: differential, symptoms. Stephdly (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added descriptions of content sections to the lead about causes and treatment. Edited pathophysio section to include more neutral language. Stephdly (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Converted some of the lists in the classifications section into tables to make it easier to read. Stephdly (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DOI was added to reference 1 Stephdly (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Kdang0927 reviewed and fixed the date for all citations except cites 21-23 which Stephdly focused on. Kdang0927 reviewed sources 17-23 for predatory publishers. We did not have any duplicate sources.Kdang0927 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed sources 1-8 for predatory publishers, none found. Updated source 1 to add DOI. Stephdly (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed sources 9-16, no predatory publishers found. Noriellerosario (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Norielle Rosario[reply]

CNakamura17 reviewed sources 24-31 for predatory publishers and found none. Ensured that all research articles had PMIDs and all links were active. Updated publishing dates for sources 23 and 31. CNakamura17 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]