Talk:Intention tremor

message: We recently updated this page as part of a school project. The information presented in the past introduction was mentioned in our final draft. Any additional comments or recommendations are appreciatedAndyD147 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me give a bit of feedback.  I think this is a very nice start -- most of the necessary information already seems to be present.  What is mainly needed is a thorough cleanup -- the article is full of spelling errors, ungrammatical sentences, etc.  One suggestion I will make is that there are a number of videos on youtube showing examples of this condition, and it would be nice to add pointers to one or two of the best ones -- there's nothing more helpful to understanding this than seeing it in action.  Youtube should not be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles but there is no prohibition on adding links to them at the end of the article, in a See Also or Further Information section.  The best I know of is this one on cerebellar ataxia. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We like your idea about adding a link to a youtube video of an intention tremor so we added that in a new further information section. Also, we looked through the article and tried cleaning up any grammar or spelling mistakes. Hopefully we got most of them and we should catch any left over as we continue work on the article in the coming weeks. Thanks AndyD147 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Project

message: I have made several general comments at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. You should take a look at them since they are in some cases applyable to this article. Some examples below:
*History sections tend to go at the end of the article.
*No Caps on titles. Instead of "Motorcycle Accident and Neurological Profile" should be "Motorcycle accident and neurological profile"
*Similarly linked words should not be capped differentely to what would be done if unlinked. There are many of these errors in the article: 
::For example a paragraph was: such as Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke, Alcoholism, Alcohol withdrawal, Peripheral neuropathy, Wilson's Disease and Fragile X Syndrome, as well as Brain tumors, low blood sugar, normal aging, a variety of drugs, such as sedatives and anticonvulsants, and traumatic brain injury. 
:: I have corrected it to: Some causes include a variety of neurological disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, stroke, alcoholism, alcohol withdrawal, peripheral neuropathy, Wilson's disease and fragile X syndrome, as well as brain tumors, low blood sugar, normal aging, a variety of drugs, such as sedatives and anticonvulsants, and traumatic brain injury: only exception is Wilson's disease since it is a proper name.
*Drug names should neither be capitalized.
*I am not sure on the usefulness-correctedness of having a section on causes and another on related disorders: it might be worth merging them since they mostly talk about the same.
* Similarly the paragraph starting: An intention tremor is frequently accompanied by... lacks context: Does not give much info unless it is explained why they usually come together.
*There is only a paragraph actually describing intention tremor and it is in the lead: On the one hand the lead should only summarize the info of the article, so that info should appear in the body of the article. On the other hand it seems quite short: it would be great to have more info on how intention tremors are.
More to come as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Garrondo for your input. We've tried correcting a lot of the mistakes you pointed out and we're going to look into a better way to possibly set up our sections, merging some if we have to. Also, we'll try adding a little more context to the places you pointed out. Look for changes to come. Thanks AndyD147 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast comments

message: My group researched something similar to this and so it caught my attention. I think you did a great job at condensing the information for this disease and presented it in an easy-to-read manner. There are a couple points I would like to make though. First, you didn't talk about how these intentional tremors could be caused by Wilson's disease and West Nile Virus. Is it because these result in lesions to different areas of the brain or because they alter neurotransmitter levels? The same could also be said when you mentioned mercury, methyl bromide and lithium. mentioning these causes is no enough and I think if you find a link between these chemicals and the symptom it will strengthen your stub a great deal. You also mentioned some drugs that can induce these intention tremors again without mentioning the pathway through which they effect us. Lastly, you mentioned treatment that was successful in alleviating the symptoms through the breakdown of GABA. Then you followed up with treatment that dealt with the issue through the decrease of serotonin which is excitation. Do these treatments work on different circuits therefore, because if not, this seems a bit counter intuitive. Other than that you did a good job and I thought the pictures in each section were perfect. Lakkisi (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: First off, I thought this article was very well written. The scientific writing is presented in a manner than can be easily understood by any potential wikipedia readers. My first comment is merely organizational, but I'm wondering if it would flow better if you were to separate the comments regarding the intentional tremors into distinct categories for the ones stemming from everyday activities and the more permanent tremors. Stylistically, it might flow a little better. Second, the last sentence of the diagnosis section (regarding current medications and pharmacological agents) is too isolated. If possible, I would expand upon this topic with any specific medications that are in use or being tested. If there is no information regarding current medications, it may be better to put that sentence with the rest of the medication information in the research directions section. Our article had a similar issue and it was recommended that we condense certain paragraphs in order to make them more complete. Along the same lines, is there anything that can be added to the history section? Perhaps any initial research done that really opened up the subject? Otherwise, I think this article is very thorough and informative. Good work. Orourkcd (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Hi guys, nice job with the topic, it's substantially improved compared to when you started. A few notes:
*There are a few comments after your 4/7 reply that didn't seem to be addressed, either by making the suggested changes or by indicating why the changes weren't made. 
*The History section should probably be one of the first sections rather than the last, so your readers have a sense of the topic background early on. 
NeuroJoe (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: Concerning the following sentence in the "Management" section:
:"There are alternative treatments available. Cannabis has been offered as an effective treatment for individuals with tremors, but the inclination to find conclusive scientific data on such a treatment has not existed in the medical community.[17]"
The reference given is a review of cannabis in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and discusses the paucity of evidence for using cannabis to treat MS related tremor.  It has nothing to do with intention tremor, per se.  Also, the suggestion that the lack of evidence of any use of cannabis is due to the fact that the medical community isn't inclined to look for evidence is absurd.  This is nothing but a foregone conclusion and has no bearing on the state of affairs.  The sentence in question has been removed. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "There has been no research conducted on the potential benefits of therapeutic Cannabis treatments, not merely a lack of positive research, something that may well be attributed to political or social constraints on the exploration of such a therapy."
Has also been removed as it is nothing more than superfluous editorializing.  Why would we call out the fact that there hasn't been sufficient research on cannabis and not call out the infinite number of other "things" that have not been researched for the management of intention tremor?  The sentence in question is clearly ideological grandstanding and nothing more. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis for Management