lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Racine stages

message: 1. Quality of Information: 1 – try to find more up-to-date articles
2. Article size: 0 – only had 9.4 kilobytes (has 7kB now)
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1  - you don’t have any articles within the last 3 years
5. Links: 1- you could probable link more terms in the “introduction” section
6. Responsive to comments: 2 – no comments before this
7. Formatting: 1 – you have headline of “Racine Stages” under the table of contents
8. Writing: 1 – you have a few grammar mistakes throughout the page
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 – I liked the video, just go through your paper again and expand more on each of your sections (for example, define who HM is briefly before starting to talk about him).
_______________
Total:      12  out of 20
Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

message: The racine classification is only to classify seizures in animal models for epilepsy. It has no applicability in humans whatsoever and does not directly help eplilepsy patients in any way. Ronald Racine's score system undoubtely has made a huge contribution to epilepsy research, and his score system is still used today, often in unchanged form. Therefore, the article should focus on animal research and leave all links to human epilepsy out. This includes the story of Henry Molaison; it makes absolutely no sense why that is mentioned in this article.  
Also, it is stated that 'Once the epileptic patient experiences a seizure, the patient becomes more susceptible to having further seizures'. This phenomenon, known as 'seizures beget seizures', is certainly true for kindling in animal models but there is still much debate whether such an mechanism actually exists in humans  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17571354. Thus, reporting this without even providing a reference is controversial at best. 
I would recommend rewriting the article, leaving out all links of the racine classification to human epilepsy, as there are no direct links between these two subjects. 
kind regards, 
Lex Groot, dutch wikipedia contributor (forgot my password -_- ) and last year medical student
145.29.254.33 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very inaccurate

message: The section on the extra stages added to the standard 5 Racine stages also contains the following: "Research into the cure for epilepsy is ongoing. Different levels of tolerance to outside stimulus exist for each patient. Some patients experience seizures with audio or visual stimulation. However, some patients are more sensitive to environmental factors than others.[4] In most cases treatment from medication or surgery can help limit the prevalence of seizures.[10][11] However, these treatment methods do not always cure the patient.[12]" This has nothing whatsoever to do with this classification of seizures in a rat model.
Stuart Black (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous information
Talk:El Cantante

message: I had to remove these quotes from critics regarding Jennifer Lopez's performance because its showing nothing more than blatant bias and furthermore serving as an excuse to bolster up any credibility that Lopez can muster. If we're going to show quotes praising Lopez for her "performance" then it is just that in order to maintain neutrality, we also present quotes that actually damned her performance, because her acting was not universally praised; it was panned in several circles. Peter Sobczynski from eFilmcritic.com, Ed Gonzales from Slant Magazine and Mick LaSalle from The San Francisco Chronicle called her "unconvincing" in her role, while Robert Wilonsky from the Village Voice thought she was miscast in the part.  Peter Bradshaw from The Guardian called her "a block of wood".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crevilla (talk • contribs) 04:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Jennifer Lopez Praise 

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: Removed the phrase "was screened in nearly 2 theaters" that came after the statistics for the opening weekend of The Bourne Ultimatum, though I'm not sure why I even care.--Jelsova (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of non-sensical sentence fragment 

message: Solo bosa Santa Fe y como fue con los de miyos  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.133.8.254 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solo bosa del leon 

message: He jumped out of a hotel in Florida 2601:702:8002:650:6082:3AA0:1E49:CF8D (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  real facts
Talk:Phasic transmitter

message: I proposed that this article be deleted, but the tag was removed, and I'm curious to know why. The reason that I suggested the deletion is that, as far as I know, there is no such thing as a "phasic transmitter." I'm guessing that someone read the phrase "phasic transmitter release" somewhere, and decided to make the article, thinking that "phasic" was an adjective modifying "transmitter." In fact, in that case, "phasic" is an adverb modifying "release"--that is, the phrase describes a neurotransmitter that is released in a phasic fashion, rather than a "phasic transmitter." Because "phasic transmitters" don't exist (there are only neurotransmitters that are phasically), I don't see any way to improve or expand an article about them. I still support deleting the article, but I'd like to know what others think. Rob Hurt (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came across this, and I have a suggestion: just merge it into Neuromodulation#Volume transmission. I think the page creator here was basically equating "tonic" with "volume transmission", and "phasic" with "regular" synaptic transmission. It would be easy just to add a sentence to the section on the target page, about the difference in time course, and that would be enough to constitute the "merge". Then, this page would simply become a redirect to that section (as would Tonic transmitter), and that would be that. I don't even think we need a full discussion to do that, as I doubt that it would be controversial. I'll just wait a couple of days, and if no one objects here, I'll go ahead with the merge. (Merges are always less of a hassle than deletions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

text: PS: Looking at the history of Tonic transmitter, I see that it was deleted through an uncontested PROD, and the reasoning then was the same as your reasoning here. Go figure. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a better idea. Thanks for the help! Rob Hurt (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion
Talk:Mary White College

message: The current sporting etc results are not really encyclopedia worthy - are they?
Jacketed 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Klatskin tumor

message: From my understanding, I thought that because of the strategic location of the Klatskin Tumor, it can cause obstruction and hence an earlier presentation by the patient with jaundice and thus these tmors can be resected with a much more reasonable (and better) prognosis compared to most cholangiocarcinomas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.72.156 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: note
Talk:Choriocarcinoma

message: 1. In the first paragraph under the Treatments section, the article states: 
 "The cure rate, even for metastatic gestational choriocarcinoma, is around 90–95%." 
There is no citation or reference for this statistic. A review article in the Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. states that cure rates are more than 90% when using chemotherapy for invasive mole and choriocarcinoma. 
Reference: Biscaro A, Braga A, Berkowitz RS. Diagnosis, classification and treatment of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2015;37(1):42-51. doi:10.1590/SO100-720320140005198  
2. In the second paragraph under the Treatments section, the article states:
 "At present, treatment with single-agent methotrexate is recommended for low-risk disease..."
It is unclear whether this single-agent treatment with methotrexate is used presently since a time is not specified and the references used are dated in 1989 and 2006. A more recent article in the World Journal of Clinical Oncology presents either single-agent methotrexate or actinomycin-D as first-line treatment for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. 
EX. 
 "As of 2019, treatment with either single-agent methotrexate or actinomycin-D is recommended for low-risk disease..." 
:See here for the World Journal of Clinical Oncology article (2019). Cvo.UCSF (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II 2020 Group 3 proposed edits 

message: While metastasis of Choriocarcinoma to the brain or liver certainly is a poor prognostic factor, I have seen cases reports of patients with metastatic choriocarcinoma to the brain that have survived. Thus, I think the claim that liver or brain metastases are typically fatal should be removed. Immunize  (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for one case report of a patient of metastatic Choriocarcinoma to the brain who survived with irradiation and multi-agent chemotherapy. Immunize  (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about the course of choriocarcinoma metastatic to the brain and liver  

message: This article states in the first sentence of the first paragraph (under the treatment section)
 "Choriocarcinoma is one of the tumors that is most sensitive to chemotherapy."
For more clarity the statement needs to remind the audience that "pure choriocarcinoma of the testis" has a quite high resistance to chemotherapy/anticancer drugs unlike "choriocarcinoma of the placenta"
The information is unclear without specifying the location of the Choriocarcinoma under both sections of the article "Etiology and Treatment".
EX:
 "Choriocarcinoma of the placenta" is one of the tumors that is most sensitive to chemotherapy unlike ("pure choriocarcinoma of the testis")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.116.162 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemotherapy/Anticancer Drugs and Choriocarcinoma
Talk:Virus cancer link

message: Removed from the article:
:*Burkitts lymphoma which is the most common childhood cancer in Equatorial Africa, is also associated with the malaria parasite, BL may be a polyclonal disease where more than one pathogen plays a role in the cell transformation. Nasopharyngeal cancer, B-cell lymphomas and Hodgkins lymphoma have also been linked with this virus. 
The malaria parasite is not a virus. --Una Smith 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ovarian clear-cell carcinoma

message: I propose to make this article more general, not directed specifically at the ovary, with links to the various clear cell tumors that originate from different organs, i.e. kidney, ovary, uterus, cervix, vagina,- also lung, pancreas, salivary gland,...Ekem (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong support. --Arcadian (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear cell tumor not restricted to ovary

message: Other clear cell carcinoma articles are not hyphenated.--Trilotat (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should title be hyphenated? 
Talk:Granulosa cell tumour

message: This tumor is not restricted to the ovary;  it occurs also in the testis.  Someone please rewrite, perhaps using a related tumor page as a model. --Una Smith 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started. --Una Smith (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans

message: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/31/trent-williams-reveals-he-had-cancer-says-redskins-failed-test-it-six-years/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This NFL guy had it
Talk:4-Nitroquinoline 1-oxide

message: Hello.
I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Reassessment for [[WP:MED|WikiProject Medicine]]
Talk:Fibroadenoma

message: no info on whether this can happen in males or not  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.121.57 (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now. Mattopaedia (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

message: I have removed this from the def but if someone thinks it is relevant it could be moved to a separate section:
Fibroadenomas' (sometimes called breast mice or a breast mouse  )
Richiez (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  exotic names and trivialities 

message: Is there an explanation for why there are so many similar ultrasound images to illustrate fibroadenoma?  Some of the images even appear to be of the same fibroadenoma, just from a marginally different viewpoint.  If there's a reason why so many are needed (e.g. different views of the same fibroadenoma), it would help if it was articulated in the text.  Otherwise, they're just unnecessary and potentially confusing.  --PLUMBAGO 11:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image number 

message: Small stub variant better presented on Fibroadenoma page Iztwoz (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cellular fibroadenoma]]
Talk:Gerstmann–Sträussler–Scheinker syndrome

message: Hello my name is Sonya Brooks. I added history and testing to this article because it was greatly our of date and little misleading. I am and have been researching this topic for a college research project. It also runs in my family bloodline and i take this personal so if there is any questions feel free to ask me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonya.brooks (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: notes

message: I plan to expand the treatments and research sections, and edit the sourcing for some of the articles listed in the research section. I would also like to find the citations for the causes section. I also plan to rearrange the information in the research section, and add more to the prognosis. 
BiochemS258 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Edits
Talk:Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor

message: I've received permission from Kelly Martin to post her comment in another forum here:
"I do occasionally look at Wikipedia after I finish doing my research, just to see what is there.  In the case of [wparticle]Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor[/wparticle], the article materially misstates the survivability rates by lumping together several different categories of tumor with very distinct presentations and characteristics.  Articles written professionally for laypeople honestly state that survivability is highly variable and difficult to predict due to the very low incidence of this class of tumors.  Articles written professionally for practitioners give much more specific information, identifying factors (e.g. tumor size, tumor location, whether the tumor is rhabdomyoblastomatous) that allow the practitioner to reasonably advise their patients and their families as to the likely prognosis.  The Wikipedia article mentions that rhabdomyoblastomatous tumors have a different name, but does not note that this is the single most significant factor in predicting survivability.  In addition, the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with generally accepted practice guidelines, as published in 2012, which reflects the fact that all but one of the sources to the Wikipedia article are at least seven years old.  (No excuse, though; they're also inconsistent with this well-balanced article for practitioners, from 2006.)  The article's statements about the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are inconsistent with current best practice; recent clinical evidence has indicated that chemotherapy is problematic in patients with neurofibromatosis as chemotherapy agents may exacerbate existing benign neurofibromas (a critical fact that the article only hints at). 
"I'm seriously glad I read the NIH material before I read this article; I would have been far less sanguine for the chances of my son living to see his next birthday had I read the Wikipedia article first.  And I am even more glad that my son's doctors don't rely on Wikipedia for medical advice." 
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  16:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in this article
Talk:Lymphangioma

message: The assignment to generate references requires you to generate a list of the discussion page.... not in the actual article.--JimmyButler (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: #
#
#
#
#
#
#1987 Medical Encyclopedia
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
----
Graded --JimmyButler (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential  references 

message: You are on the right path, yet I would suggest removal of your current literal citations (quotes) and replacment with your own words. If you continue to do this, you will simply have to edit it down the road as you attempt GA status. Why would I want to read this article if I can just read the one you quoted all your info from...? This is why you must put it into your own words - sentence fluency is a must. FoodPuma 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal Citations 

message: Optimal section arrangement as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles):
*Classification
*Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
*Causes or Genetics
*Pathophysiology or Mechanism
*Diagnosis (including Characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis)
*Prevention or Screening
*Treatment or Management
*Prognosis
*Epidemiology
*History (not patient history)
*Society and culture (e.g., stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues)
*Research directions
*In other animals
*See also (avoid if possible, use wikilinks in the main article)
*Notes
*References
*Further reading or Bibliography (paper resources such as books, not web sites)
*External links (avoid if possible)
* Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  optimal section arrangement 
Talk:Blastoma

message: Despite the historical name, glioblastoma multiforme often originates with anaplastic cells rather than precursors, which partially accounts for the inconsistencies with most blastomata (e.g. mean age of patients)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.24.152 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  undifferentiated vs dedifferentiated
Talk:Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia

message: PIN per se isn't diagnosed, as noted here.  HGPIN is considered the precursor; the other grades are not.  As such, I think the article should really be re-written to refer to HGPIN with one section explaining the history and how it evolved that only HGPIN is reported by pathologists.  In other words, "PIN" should not be used in the article, except in the section explaining the history. After, the above is fixed the article ought to be merged with/moved to High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.  I'd do this, but I can't as I'm not an admin. Nephron  T|C 00:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HGPIN and PIN
Talk:Hidradenoma

message: This entry lumped too many different entities.Epithelium (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And in fact, the Andrews clinical dermatology textbook from which this article is primarily based is incorrect, or at least in disagreement, with other authoritative dermatology textbooks (e.g. Bolognia) and from dermatopathology standard classification.  While the term "acrospiroma" is sometimes used more descriptively as a general category of benign sweat gland tumor inclusive of both poroma and hidradenoma, it is traditionally synonymous with hidradenoma and I believe it best to go by the dermatopathologic definitions because these are diagnoses that entirely depend on the histologic appearance of these tumors.  Thus, I move that this page re-direct to hidradenoma page with relevant material migrated over. Dr G (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: :Acrospiroma →  – The Andrews clinical dermatology textbook from which this article is primarily based is incorrect, or at least in disagreement, with other authoritative dermatology textbooks (e.g. Bolognia) and from dermatopathology standard classification.  While the term "acrospiroma" is sometimes used more descriptively as a general category of benign sweat gland tumor inclusive of both poroma and hidradenoma, it is traditionally synonymous with hidradenoma and I believe it best to go by the dermatopathologic definitions because these are diagnoses that entirely depend on the histologic appearance of these tumors.  According to a 2007 review article from the Journal of Clinical Pathology (#10 on Google Scholar list of top Pathology publications), which is in agreement with the hidradenoma entry in Bolognia's Dermatology.  Thus, I move that this page re-direct to hidradenoma page, which is itself almost totally undeveloped. Dr G (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move
Talk:Satwant Pasricha

message: I thought Tom Shroder's book was about Ian Stevenson, not Satwant Pasricha. Could someone clarify this please.  Johnfos 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Satwant Parsricha was a protege of Dr. Stevenson. During his last trip to India, they worked together and Shroder reports on it in his book. Arundhati bakshi 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Souls

message: I'm aware that Satwant Pasricha has co-authored a paper with Dr Stevenson and others, but so have many people.  Where is the evidence that SP was Dr Stevenson's protege?
Satwant Pasricha may well have been mentioned in the book Old Souls, but it has been reported in the Washington Post that the book is about Ian Stevenson.  Where is the evidence that the book is about SP?
You need to refer to sources to back up your claims, or else it just looks like you are trying to inflate the importance of the person being discussed, which does not make for a neutral presentation.  So I'm adding a POV tag. Johnfos 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding POV tag

message: why so much stress on her religion etc. she is a doctor afterall, consider removing her religion at VERY begging of article Jon Ascton (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why her Sikh religious affiliation is important. However, other editors have felt this way and the article is tagged as part of WikiProject Religion. It may have relevance to her work in reincarnation research. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Sikhs believe in reincarnation and some people may feel that this biases her work in what is already a controversial area of research. 70.186.172.214 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Religion Matter ?