Talk:Urethritis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.W.Hon, Cynthia Fu, Future UCSF Pharm.D., A.Nono, Future UCSF PharmD..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

Should the first sentence end with "increased frequency"  ? Tbsmith 02:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The length of the cotton swap insertion is obvious vandalism, and I'm unsure what the correct length is. I'll research it. **I just reverted it instead**. --Thehiddenmind (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Prevent

The "prevent" section should be rewritten, if not deleted. Nazgul02 (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
→ Agreed. Doesn't sound very medically sound, and no references. --76.112.125.229 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The questionable section has been removedVIOLENTRULER (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

This page needs the attention of an expert. There are some problems with the information. The last sentences are particularly problematic in terms of syntax and grammar - as well as content. Jm3106jr (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• They have been removedVIOLENTRULER (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• It also needs more information about women's symptoms, diagnosis and treatment. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger

After I began an attempt to improve the article I noticed there is another article that has a slightly narrower scope: Non-gonococcal_urethritis. Perhaps the Urethritis article should evolve into a simple summary article that refers to Non-gonococcal_urethritis and perhaps either the clap or a new gonococcocal urethritis article. VIOLENTRULER (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 30 proposed edits

Introduction: Include more information regarding subtopics listed. Include population, clinical manifestations, epidemiology, etiology, causes, pathophysiology, treatment management, patient education, diagnosis (different types), signs and symptoms. A.Nono, Future UCSF PharmD. (talk) 4 November 2024

Hi Group 30, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad to see folks interested in medicine-related pages here; there's lots to be done. I'll try to keep an eye on this talk page, so if you have questions as you get to editing, feel free to ask here. To help guide your thinking and research, you can find a list of sections that we often include in articles on diseases/syndromes here. Otherwise, happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Peer Review by Group 29

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, Group 30's edits have substantially improved the article. The content under each subtopic is relevant to the different subheadings for the article, and each subtopic has substantial and pertinent details that are cited with reliable sources. For instance, having looked at the authorship of the article as well as page additions, it was clear that the group had elaborated on all of the subtopics. Overall, the entire article is well-balanced.
• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group's goal was to expand the various subtopics, and I believe they were able to achieve this.
• Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? While the majority of the headings do follow the WP:MEDMOS guidelines, the Epidemiology section should be moved to the end of the article, following the Treatment section. In addition, Complications should be made a subheading under the Symptoms heading. Mxphan (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group has made substantial changes that increase the reader's knowledge of this disease state and its treatments. For example, they expanded on the recommended treatment plan for urethritis based on its causation and duration.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group set out to increase the amount of information under each subheading in the article, and they did so with balanced data and clearly cited sources.

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? The group's edits do reflect a neutral point of view. For example, they do not use value statements when describing the sexually transmitted ways of acquiring urethritis. Another example of how this group keeps a neutral point of view is including data about the disease for both men and women. One clarification issue that could be addressed is the bullet point regarding pre-exposure vaccination. What vaccinations are they referring to in the article, since there is more than one possible cause of urethritis? H.K.Barton (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Group 30 has made significant edits to the article, has improved the content and formatting substantially, following the guiding framework well. By adding relevant new content, clarified the etiology sections and developed content for discussion of epidemiology. Their specific goals of expanding information on various subtopics including etiology, symptoms, diagnosis, etc were achieved.

All content and subsections were checked with https://searchenginereports.net/plagiarism-checker and no evidence of plagiarism has been detected. Carrie bi (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group’s edits have made substantial changes and improvements to the article. New sections such as the Etiology section were added, and the Treatment section was expanded.

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group has achieved their goal to include more details in the various subsections.

• Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify. The points are verifiable with reliable and unbiased secondary sources. Most of the sources are up-to-date and freely available on the internet, however the pages for references 1 and 2 are no longer available. Ucsfjchen (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)