Talk:Chlamydia trachomatis

message: This page needs to be refocused on the species, C. trachomatis.  The infection caused by it is presently being covered at chlamydia infection.  Also, the appropriate redirect links need to be added to the chlamydia infection page, the chlamydia bacterium page, etc.  Comments, questions, assistance?  Walking Softly 03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refocus page on bacterium, not on infection with

message: Incorrect
"Many, but not all,[2] C. trachomatis strains have an extrachromosomal plasmid."
The reference do not support the statement. The reference talks about a new variant C. trachomatis which has a deletion in its plasmids (not a variant without plasmids). 130.243.248.239 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. New ref () discusses existence of plasmid-free strains (both wild-type and lab) in the introduction. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref issue 

message: Staccato cough?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.175.175 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signs 

message: I've looked and I don't see hardly any mention of Professor Tang Feifan online other than what is in some medical texts. Is there a viable citation I could go look up at the library?
http://www.austincc.edu/microbio/2704t/ct
Mrmeval1 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a title Professor Tang Feifan  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chlamydia trachomatis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323111120/http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/c/chlamydia.html to http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/c/chlamydia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Our goals to help improve the page include:
1. Using more layperson terms throughout the page
2. Checking on if there are a new guidelines for treating Chlamydia (8/6/19: Guidelines are still the same, most up-to-date guidelines are from CDC 2015) 
3. Listing the diagnostic process and applicable laboratory tests
4. Finding any new tests for identifying the presence of the bacterium. 
Fannnypack (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7b goals 

message: 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? -- Yes, the group has added more information about the pharmacological interventions that can be done in response to chlamydia.
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? -- Yes, although they are adding information regarding to pharmacological interventions, they have been able to keep the edits in lay language for the general Wikipedia reader.
3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? -- Yes, the group's edits have maintains a neutral point of view that has been supported by data. 
Ashleyher (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashley's Peer Review, Foundations 2 2019 

message: 1. The group's edits have improved the article. They expanded more on the treatment section specifically on the antibiotics.
2. The group met some of their goals. I think that the addition of guidelines as stated in their goal would be a great addition.
3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? Yes
Sara.F.Shaikh (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sara's Peer Review 2019 

message: 1. Thank you for your feedback regarding our contribution. As for the comment regarding adding guidelines, as aforementioned in our goals the current guidelines cited on Wikipedia are the most up-to-date.
Group 7B did a great job editing the treatment subsection of this article, especially by filling in gaps in knowledge, so it seems to be much more concise and easily understandable towards the audience. 
The group did a great job remaining neutral. 
ManuelSeraydarian (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 7B Discussion of Peer-Review 

message: Goals
1.  The use of lay terms was evident in the edits made.
2.  Although the guidelines are still the same, helpful information was added to improve the treatments section. 
3.  The laboratory tests section was well supplemented. 
 This groups edits substantially improve the article, and the group achieved their overall goals for improvement. Group 7b's draft submissions also reflect a neutral point of view. Overall, they did a great job!
Michaelfashola (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael's Review- Foundations 2019