Talk:Aseptic meningitis

message: Can this possibly be correct? The article only has one sub-section and it's a list of links. All the links are stubs. It also has only one reference. I don't see how this could be rated more than start class at most. The symptoms, general treatments, and prognosis should be described. Some information about frequency of occurrence, possibly by cause, would be useful. Probing Mind (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. There is more information in :meningitis than there is here. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is listed as B Class in quality.

message: Currently the 4th paragraph reads:
"There is no formal classification system. It is usually by the causative organism if identified."
Could someone medically-minded please clarify that second sentence, and/or provide an example of what it is trying to say?
Thanks very much.
--TyrS 14:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting clarification re "causative organism" & identification 

message: Thank you for reviewing our wiki page, we added more links, specifically to myocarditis and necrosis.MMstudentMU (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: This article offered a lot of interesting information of the topic.  The structure and wording of the page made it pretty easy to follow along with.  There are still some regular citations of source 1 included even though the proper footnote link is there.  A couple more links might be useful to add on some words to provide easier accessibility  on further understanding the information if needed.  I would also suggest including another illustration, maybe in the types of aseptic meningitis section where there might be pictures showing the process of how one becomes infected by it. (AKMade (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: Overall, the article is very detailed and well summarized in your own words. There were no to little grammatical errors as well as straight forward and concise. The information under each subheading had good content, but the “History” section needs some work. It would beneficial for any reader to know more about it statistically increasing or decreasing in comparative years. Furthermore, adding more links as well would be helpful under the “Causes of Aseptic Meningitis” & the “Symptoms” sections. After going through one of your sources that you cited correctly, “Diagnosis, Initial Management, and Prevention of Meningitis”, it would be ideal to extract more info from here. It is possible to extract statistics from here to explain differences between different meningitis other than subtypes of your topic to help for comparison. For instance, Table 4 in the source talks about Bacterial meningitis vs. Asecptic Meningitis in children and gives a description of clinical scores as well as what bacterial meningitis is. AndreH29 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: Article is Adequately written and in my opinion passes muster. One thing is that I would recommend that more visuals be implemented in the article. Not a whole lot, more like 1 or 2 more. Another thing that I recommend should be done is that I noticed that most of the sections in the article didn't have any links to other Wikipedia pages. You should go back and add some because some of the readers might not know some of the terms used in said sections. For example even I do not know much about some of the diseases mentioned in the article such as "hepatic necrosis", if "hepatic necrosis" was linked to it's Wikipedia page (providing it has one) that would help enhance my understanding. D. Royevich (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: The article seems to be organized pretty well which it seems was one of your goals. A couple things I would note is that there are some words that could be linked which people above have already mentioned. In the second section there is also a citation, "Irani, Aseptic Meningitis and Viral Myelitis", which shows up multiple times. If this is a citation it should be put in the footnote format so it doesn't clutter the paragraph. I also think the types of aseptic meningitis section looks a little clustered with all the bullet points. Maybe keeping it in paragraph form and explaining them more would be beneficial.ThayerM12 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary review

message: Great article! Just some edits I think might be beneficial, change the "rather than" in the first sentence, to "other than." In the symptoms section make sure to get rid of the citations in the section. You only need to use the hyperlinked number to your sources. Also, there are many words that you might want to hyperlink to other pages. Not many people in the general public will know what hepatic necrosis or myocarditis are. I may be wrong about this, but your treatment section seems very small. Maybe try expanding the section and add what some new treatments or something about efficacy of certain treatments. Also it would make more sense for the treatment section to come after the diagnosis section. The prognosis section might as well be put into the treatment section since it is only two sentences. Your history section might want to be expanded. Who was the first to identify this disease? When was is it identified? Where was it discovered?...etc. I like your lead paragraph, but I would delete the last two sentences of the paragraph, since you will be talking about those topics later in the page. No need for them in the intro. Looking at your source, "Aseptic Meningitis and Viral Myelitis" it is in fact a secondary source and I see where you got your information from. One thing I would add from that source is the epidemiology of aseptic meningitis. Not only is it interesting, but it would be useful your wiki page. Willc22 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: There could be more information added to the page, it is a little short. I would also add more images about the molecular basis of the topic. There is also minimal references and links to other existing Wikipedia pages, so add those in to further expand the knowledge of the readers. There is also minimal detail in a lot of the sections. For example, under the Treatment section, I would go more into detail about what antiviral therapy entails, and specifically what it does in reference to this specific illness. Under the Diagnosis section, the first two sentences are very confusing, I would re-word them and include the actual definition of what  the term aseptic actually means. 
--Kellyneurobiology (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 2 

message: Hello, I am evaluating the page based on the six criteria for a good article
# Well written- Overall, the article was well written. You guys did a good job in making sure that the article sounded like one voice. I think that you guys have a solid lead that gives general information. There are a few suggestions for improving the overall article. I think that you guys could add more content to certain sections of the article (i.e Treatment, Prognosis, History). Also, there are a lot of problems with grammar and sentence structure in multiple sections of the article. Please go back and fix these sections. I looked at one of your references ("Lumbar puncture (spinal tap)"). I think that you could talk about some of the risk of conducting this procedure. Also, you may want to think about finding more articles to review. I looked at a couple of other references and there were only abstracts. One way of getting a lot of secondary articles is going to PubMed and searching Aseptic meningitis for example. On the far left click reviews. This will provide you with many secondary articles.
# Verifiable with no original research- You guys did a good job in ensuring there was only secondary articles referenced. Also the formatting and citing of each article looks good.
# Broad in coverage- You guys did a good job in presenting general information about the topic. I would suggest going back through the article and providing definitions or links to words that are not of common knowledge. For example, in the Cause of Aseptic Meningitis, you first introduce enteroviruses but fail to define it Throughout the article there are other words that need to be defined/linked when they are first introduced. 
# Neutral- You guys did a good job at presenting the information from a neutral POV without bias.
# Stable - GOOD
# IllUstrated-  You guys did a good job on presenting media when possible. You may want to think about adding an additional photo showing inflammation of a brain due to meningitis (If possible)
  JLPhys2018 (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: Overall, the article has a lot to offer. There are small changes that can be easily made to make this article much better. The addition of a couple more visuals would "spice" up the article and possibly even make it easier on the reader to get all the needed information about the topic. Organization for me seemed interesting. I see the way it is now and the flow seems off. A possible change could be moving the Diagnosis section in front of the Prevention section. Also, to me, the History section should be added to the beginning; it seems just placed at the end. The Prognosis section needs to either be worked on more or moved into one of the above categories because it is not really offering anything big. I think it would work better if it was incorporated into the Lead where there is some similar information. Other than that, work on adding more citations/links and the grammar and you should be good to go! NirmPatel (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: Well Written
This article is well written overall. Your lead section is a good summary and explanation of aseptic meningitis, which is great. There are mistakes in this article, but they can be easily fixed. Just a few that I caught:
“a disease that is can depend on the patient’s age “ - there are a few extra words here that are not needed and don’t make sense in the sentence. I’m sure you can catch most mistakes similar to this by simply reading over your work.
“the next set of age group, like children, have similar but varying symptoms of sore throat, rashes, and diarrhea (Irani, Aseptic Meningitis and Viral Myelitis).” -  The part that threw me off was “the next set of age group, like children…” There is a better, more well-written way to state this. I’ll let you work on fixing that but an overall suggestion, not specific to this sentence, is using “such as” or “for example” rather than “like”.
“One of the leading reasons for why patients develop aseptic meningitis is because of mumps and herpes (Irani, Aseptic Meningitis and Viral Myelitis). As a result, prevention is key in making sure that smaller issues don’t lead larger problems, like aseptic meningitis.” - you already stated mumps and herpes as causes for aseptic meningitis, so it is not necessary to restate that. Rather say “because one of the causes” or something of that nature. There are also other areas in the article where you explain what aseptic meningitis is which is not necessary since this has already been done (or should have been done) in the beginning.
These are just a few examples, but as I said, reading over your article should help you fix most  small writing mistakes!
Verifiable with no original research
I did not notice any primary articles, which is great. Awesome job in finding secondary sources. Source check on source 4 at bottom, The source “Irani, Aseptic Meningitis and Viral Myelitis” needs to be linked at the bottom though.
Broad in its coverage
You covered many different aspects relating to aseptic meningitis so well done. Everything seems to be well balanced overall; however, it may be beneficial to expand more on some of the subtopics, such as prognosis, treatment, and especially history. Unless you find a good amount of information on history, I’m not really sure that it is a section that is necessary in your article. 
Neutral I found that this article was written without any bias, so good job on keeping it neutral.
Stable good
Illustrated I think that adding a picture which shows what is happening in the brain would be helpful rather than just the picture of lumbar puncture. For example, what does a normal brain vs. one affected by aseptic meningitis look like?
MTZ15 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review