Talk:Athetosis

message: This page is being worked on this week (Monday March 21, 2011 - Friday March 25, 2011) for a neuroscience improvement project in the class BI481 at Boston College.  The link to our page is: User:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011  BrianJLike (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye on it.  Please feel free to ask questions on this page if you run into any difficulties. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, if you are going to write about this topic, I strongly suggest that you take a few minutes to go to youtube and search for "athetosis" -- if will help you get a grasp of what this condition actually is. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Being worked on: Monday March 21, 2011 - Friday March 25, 2011

message: First of all I have to congratulate you for the quality and quantity of the refs you have found.
After a fast look at the article I have some comments.
*I am making some comments for all students at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Take a look at them since many are applyable here (some detailed below)
*Several problems when adding citations: inline citations in wikipedia go after and not before the full stop of the sentence, there is no space between the full stop and the ref, and after the ref goes a space before the next sentence. A correct example would be "Hello world, I feel great today.[1]  Today is sunny."
*The Wikipedia manual of style for medicine articles (See WP:MEDMOS) has a proposal of organization into sections for different kind of articles (i.e: recommended sections for an article on a disease, or in an anatomy article, etc.). Following such proposals will make articles consistent with other wikipedia articles, and will also help you to organize them without forgetting important data.
*In this sense some sections might be worth renaming to follow conventions in WP:MEDMOS: "signs and symptoms" instead of "symtoms" "research directions" instead of "current reasearch" and so on.
*Also "History" usually goes at the end of the article instead than at the beginning.
*I also miss an epidemiology section: there should be info on it out there
*Most "red links" in this article actually exist in wikipedia: you will have to search further for the correct terms (For example: it is haloperidol, motor cortex, globus pallidus...
More as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast comments

message: This article is very interesting, informative, and well organized.  One of the main things that I appreciated about this article is that I feel that it is understandable to the common reader.  There is not an excessive amount of biological or medical terms that distract or confuse the reader.  I also think you did a good job of linking the right amount of articles within the text of your topic.  However I will point out that some of your links do not actually link to other Wikipedia articles.  These unlinked terms appear in red.  Now I’ll make a few suggestions that I hope will help you make your article that much better.  First, I think you need to clearly state whether athetosis is a disorder, a condition, or a symptom.  It is called each of these things throughout the article which causes some confusion.  In terms of language, I found one sentence that does not make sense.  It might either be incomplete or a typo may have occurred.  The sentence is found in the section titled, “Treatments” and the sentence reads, “Since athetosis is Many different medicines can be used, including…”  Also in the “Treatments” section, you may want to consider expanding and further discussing some of the items that you mentioned.  For example, what aspects of the condition do the different medicines target?  What symptoms do the specific medications relieve?  I particularly enjoyed the “Social implications” section because it provided a nice balance between the medical effects of athetosis as well as the social effects.  Finally, you reference a couple different research topics under the section, “Current research”.  I think you may want to consider expanding on some of these topics because they are slightly vague and do not provide a lot of detail.  Additionally, if you could possibly tie in some current cases of people who suffer from athetosis I think that could also provide another interesting aspect to your article.  I picked out some very specific points for my suggestions because, overall, I think your article is very well written and very educational.  You did a great job for the first time around and I wish you the best of luck with your editing!  (NeuroCaroline (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review/Comments

message: Thanks for the suggestions, we'll be making changes over the next few weeks and be sure to incorporate the things that you've mentioned. BrianJLike (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Nice job Brian, Abe and Hannah. In general the article is in great shape, the few small issues that remain:
1. Listing links in a "see also" section doesn't give the reader an idea of why those topics are important unless they're put into context in your article. And if they are, you really don't need them in a separate list at the bottom.
2. There are still a few spots where Athetosis is referred to as a condition or disorder instead of a set of symptoms. 
3. For some of the peer review comments above, justification was not given for changes that were not made. 
NeuroJoe (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: I think you've made good progress on this article.  If you're still hoping for a successful GA review, please go through the article and look for these things:
* Needless use of the passive voice (as in:  "Mistakes were made.  The passive voice was used.  Responsibility was shirked") and other forms of verbosity.  You're not trying to pad your word count, so you don't need to say "It is proposed" or "It can be seen that" or such wordy phrases.
* The lead is too short.  Try writing one two- or three-sentence paragraph about the causes, and another about the symptoms and treatment.
* There's no epidemiology section, and people usually like to know at least if it's rare disease.  If there are no sources on this point, then there should be no section—but if they exist, please add one.
* Please read WP:MEDMOS and check your language.  As an example of something you might want to revise, "patients" (all people with athetosis, or only those receiving medical care for it?) don't usually "suffer" from anything on Wikipedia.  
* You probably need more inline citations.  
** Specifically, you probably need more duplicated inline citations, because some GA reviewers [and it's luck of the draw, except that it won't be me] want an inline citation after every sentence that contains a scientific fact... which is basically every sentence.  
** IMO a somewhat more reasonable approach is to bracket groups of facts supported by a single source, so that if you have (for example) five sentences in a row (in the same paragraph) supported by a source, then sentence #1 and #5 end with the citation, and the middle ones don't.  On the other hand, if the intervening sentences contain any numbers or language involving quantitative comparisons, no matter how vague (e.g., "more likely"), then those sentences will probably want their own copy of the inline citations.  
** Also, it's good form to add a citation for any sentence that makes a specific, direct claim of cause.  It decreases the odds of the citation coming astray of the important fact if someone incautiously re-organizes a paragraph.
* Under ==Social implications==, the WP:INTEXT attribution to the journal is probably unnecessary (it's an uncontested fact, right?).
* Consider adding a few more wikilinks.  Most of the people reading this won't know basic brain anatomy.  Make sure every "anatomy lesson word" is linked at least the first time, and also the "most important" time, if that's not the first time.  For example, thalamus should be wikilinked (once) under ==Thalamic stroke==, because the reader might have skipped it earlier, but now realize that he needs to know what that is—or might have skipped straight to that section, and never seen the original link.
* Content question:  Does thalamic stroke happen in adults?  The article is kind of child-focused.  Does this ever appear in previously healthy adults?
Good luck!  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick review