Talk:Maple syrup urine disease

Maple Syrup Urine Disease Article Editing Plan

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lkhoshniatrad, Lyishida, Jahanif, Nkalajian (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ach1126, Bgentry12, Hgilleran, Serenahe71888.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit Description (add image): all

Edit Signs and Symptoms (Clinical presentations): Lorraine

Edit Diagnosis: Farnaz

Edit Causes/Pathophysiology: Nareg

Edit Prevention/Treatment: Lida

Edit Prognosis: Lorraine

Edit Epidemiology: Farnaz

Edit Research directions: Nareg Lyishida (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

A peer review of this article Hgilleran (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hannah's Peer Review

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

Yes, the group's edits do substantially improve the article. The lead section of the article gives a good overview on the main topic, the structure of the article is clear, and the content seems well-covered/ neutral.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group has achieved their overall goals for improvement of the article. Each section that the editors were assigned to had a lot of details and explanation added to what was previously there.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Yes, this article does meet Wikipedia guidelines. The edits in this article do not use any biased language and tries to use language that is accessible for all learners. If that is not possible, they link other Wikipedia articles to better explain the more complicated words.

Hgilleran (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Brice's Peer Review

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

The group edits do substantially improve the article. The information provided through the group's edits have significantly added to context of the Wikipedia article, and the added content is both relevant, reliably sourced, and are neutral to the topic.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement of the article. Each group member has contributed significantly to the subsections they had assigned for themselves.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Per Wikipedia's manual of style, the groups edits mostly adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. Edits to headers are consistent with the required, sentence case formatting; the existing style of the article is also maintained. As for the page contents, some edits should be adopted to comply with the MoS. Under the sub-header "Classification," the current numbered list that was modified should be a bulleted list as the sequence of these items are not critical. As well, certain key terms, such as LEU, ILE, and VAL plasma concentrations under "Monitoring", BKD and BCAA's under "Liver transplantation," along with other symptoms listed throughout should either be explained briefly or link the reader to an appropriate article that is relevant and useful in the context of the statement being made.

Otherwise, the edits made to the article do follow the MoS closely. Many of the edits made on the article also work to improve user readability, which is an important component of following Wikipedia guidelines.

--Bgentry12 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Alyssa's Peer Review

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

The groups edits do improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework". The group has vastly added new information to the topic and reworded some of the original paragraphs to be more easily digestible for readers. They have also cleaned up the structure of the article to give it better flow and made it more easy to follow.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They have contributed new information on the different classifications of the disease and reworded some of the original paragraphs to be more reader friendly. They have written in a neutral stance about the subject and wrote out the data that they found clearly.

• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft does reflect a neutral point of view. The writing by all the contributors make it to where there is no one way of thinking and nothing that is entirely matter-of-fact. They have all laid out the information well with no one speaking as of one viewpoint is more prominent or correct compared to the others. In their writing as well they have been able to write in a way that does not draw to conclusions and been able to write in a neutral stance.

Ach1126 (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Serena's Peer Review Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain] --> Yes, the group's edits are substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "guiding framework." They have lead sessions that are easy to follow. Also, they have a very clear structure for the articles to read. The balanced coverage of each session is reasonable. \

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. They expand and update with the latest data and references. It would be better if they could expand a little bit more about what phenylbutyrate therapy is under the research directions.

Person B answers: Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? [explain] Not all resources are freely available :

Harris-Haman P, Brown L, Massey S, Ramamoorthy S (June 2017). "Implications of Maple Syrup Urine Disease in Newborns". Nursing for Women's Health. 21 (3): 196–206. doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2017.04.009. PMID 28599741.

D 36550798.

Lavin LR, Higby N, Abramo T (September 2015). "Newborn Screening: What Does the Emergency Physician Need to Know?". Pediatric Emergency Care. 31 (9): 661–667. doi:10.1097/PEC.0000000000000549. ISSN 0749-5161. PMID 26335232.

Some are not review article:

Hallam P, Lilburn M, Lee PJ (2005). "A new protein substitute for adolescents and adults with maple syrup urine disease (MSUD)". Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease. 28 (5): 665–672. doi:10.1007/s10545-005-0061-6. PMID 16151896. S2CID 24718350.

Other than that, the group did a very good job of citing and verified sources. Serenahe71888 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Error in image

The images displayed for isoleucine and leucine are the same image. The image for isoleucine is mistaken and should be replaced with the correct image. 206.192.168.18 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)