Talk:HIV disease–related drug reaction

Article categorization

This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Breast cancer-related regulator of tp53 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Peer Reviews from Group Gonadarche

Peer Reviews for Class Assignment 08/01 Jdecano032 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 1: All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:

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

Considering the history of the article as of 2020 seems to have just one sentence of information, this group has taken major strides to improving this article! In terms of reviewing based on the framework:

Lead: I like that the lead is short and to the point, but I feel it can give a better overview/sense of what the rest of the article has in store if there was more information included. The topic is clearly and readily defined, which is useful, but maybe some specific incidence to quantify the impact/burden of these injuries might focus me more?

Structure: My biggest takeaway regarding structure of your article is in relation to the "Types" and "Offending Medications" section. I think it might be useful to consider ways to either blend these two together or separate them further. There is a good amount of overlap, particularly with examples of "offending meds" seeming to appear in the "types section" and vice-a-versa. I think these two sections would go well together if combined or restructured!

Balance: In a similar sense, the offending meds and types sections would look more balanced combined! Otherwise, I think the most important topics here are "what is it, and how do we see it", and that is reflected by the large offending/types and diagnosis sections. I feel the appropriate amount of time is spent on these two topics. The special populations tab might be less necessary, instead with its information maybe better suited for the lead? just some thoughts!

Neutral: For the most part, I think this article succeeds at being informative and from an academic standpoint.

Sources: If I had to really try to find something that might not be applicable, the case report used in the Desensitization section, while interesting and adding context, may veer into that sort of "non neutral view" side of things. I think it's written well overall but as a source I might consider omitting it for it's "over-specificity". I may be wrong in what our guidance was to "use case reports" but that's just my thoughts from first observation!

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Despite no clear goals appearing in the talk page, I would say this group has exerted sufficient effort, bringing this page to a much more "complete" looking image than its origins in early 2020 based on editing history!

Part 2: Each member of the group should choose one of the following four prompts and respond to it.

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)

Some mention of equity is noted in the article (particularly in the precision medicine section of the page), though topics of DEI are rather sparse otherwise. I am unsure if there is a clear-cut answer to whether or not more discussion of these topics is necessary for this review, but I think that it could be achieved by fleshing out the "special populations" section to describe population groups that might be more susceptible/more often taking medications implicated in DILI like this. The discussion of the elderly done so far is done in a tasteful, neutral, and respectful way, and any additions should also reflect this style.

Feel free to reach out if you have questions or want clarification! Jdecano032 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? The group’s edit on HIV disease-related drug reactions has significantly improved the article as it follows the Wikipedia peer review framework. This article includes a clear structure: including a clear and succinct lead, followed by a clear breakdown of the different types of HIV disease-related drug reactions. All the information was delivered in a clear and neutral tone with appropriate citations where necessary. Thus, I think the group achieved its overall goal for improvement.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, see above comment.

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? A majority of the sources cited were verifiable secondary sources including systematic reviews and textbook resources; however, I did come across primary literature being cited for the subtopics within the article (7, 8). I think, however, the use of such sources is appropriate for the data being presented and does not pose a major concern.

JDavidUCSF (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Part 1: All group members should respond to the following prompts:

Thanks for editing the page- I enjoyed reading it!

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

Yes, the group's edits substantially improved the article and they touched on really nice subtopics in this page, particularly by providing a lot of information about the different types of HIV disease–related drug reactions, medications, diagnosis, prevention as well as the recommended treatment and special population such as elderly. Also, you have clearly done your research for this topic. You have considered the views of different resources, and I am particularly impressed by your use of good primary sources and you were respectful to not plagiarize your sources.

-Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

There isn't a goals section posted in the talk page, but overall the group put a lot of work into this page, this was a very good effort! It is clear that you added and improved the main points of HIV disease–related drug reactions , and you have discussed it in an easily understood way. Your page is succinct, organized, and easy to read and go through. You have shown excellent evidence of research of relevant material and included information from a rich variety of interesting sources.

• Part 2: Each member of the group should choose one of the following four prompts and respond to it.

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? (explain)

Yes, the edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. I like that the introduction sets up the context and explains why this is an important topic to consider. You have a very engaging editing style that is consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style, which allows you to communicate the information of the research you have done with clarity and sophistication.

--Marinagaducsf (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? This group has done a good job of expanding upon and improving upon the article. Given the previous state of the article they have done a good job of covering the many. I like the lead. It is concise and straight to the point. However I think there is room for expansion. It can serve as a smaller summery or framework for what the rest of the article is gong to cover. I really ejony the structure of the article, espically the table with the drugs and types of reactions. I think it would make more sense for the table to placed under offending medications rather than above it. I think this is a pretty well balanced article. The special populations section seems very interesting and I would like to see it expand upon a little more. I can see that you covered the elderly population but is there any research on HIV drug reactions with children? This seems like a neutral article. It covers many different points surrounding HIV disease–related drug reactions and stays true to the literature. Make sure to remove dates and months from your sources (only leave the year of publication) Although I do not see any goals written out under the TALK section of the article. I think this article has been greatly improved upon n baed on its original status. Part 2: • Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)

Yes they do a good job of reflecting a neutral point of view. They stay true to the literature and thoroughly address various aspects of their topic. They address when there is conflicting research and when there is not a lot of research yet done on some aspects of HIV disease–related drug reactions 

Sadoessa 08 (talk) Sado Essa 08/01/2023

Assessment - B-Class article

B-class review

1. It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:

2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:

3. It has a defined structure:

4. It is reasonably well-written:

5. It contains supporting materials where appropriate:

6. It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

JoeNMLC (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)