Talk:Madras motor neuron disease/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Will expand in good time. —Encephalon 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Marquette University Neurobiology

Hello, Our group will be editing this page for our class assignment. We expect to go live with our changes March 27th, 2017 and will be finalized on May 5th, 2017. For more information about our class please click here

1. REDIRECT Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Marquette_University/Neurobiology_(Spring_2017)

Goc cimane (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Goc cimane

• See User_talk:Pfletch/sandbox -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfletch (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Pfletch - the draft is not ready to go by a long way. Comments are at User_talk:Pfletch/sandbox Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

A couple quick fixes- in the first paragraph it says "cases arises"- take the extra s off of arise. Also, the phrase "progressively more weak" is a little awkward, you use it a couple times throughout the article. I would reword it. There are a couple red links that I would take out (Nathalie syndrome and Boltshauser syndrome). Finally, I think you can get rid of the history section, and put the information that's there in the leading paragraph. The same may work for the sections on prognosis and management, given the information is already in the leading paragraph for the most part. Otherwise, great article! You did a great job of covering so many parts of MMND! OArnold2017 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)OArnold2017

BIOL 3501 Primary Review

Evaluation through the six criteria:
-Well written
--The article is pretty well written, as previously mentioned, there are several instances when the amount of M's in MMND fluctuated in the beginning of the article. I would also change how you say it is an orphan disease because it feels as if it sticks out like a sore thumb. The prognosis section seems redundant as the prognosis is addressed earlier in the article, and this section does not provide a lot of new information. Also you should reword the sentence talking about the 9th to 12th cranial nerves, it reads weird. Just reading through one more time should catch everything.
-Verifiable with no original research
-- Everything seems to be cited correctly, other than I believe you need to have something cited at the end of your description paragraph because I am pretty sure the end of every paragraph needs to have a source.
-Broad in coverage
-- I didn't see on the talk page where you cited the goal of this page.
-Neutral
-- Seems as if you were unbiased throughout the creation of this article.
-Stable - you do not need to evaluate this criterion.
-Illustrated
-- You included a map of India, which is fine. I doubt the commons will have a picture depicting someone with MMND, but maybe include a diagram of the cranial nerves, or include a picture of a disease with similar symptoms and just make sure to say it is not MMND.

Overall I thought this was a decent article that does not need all that much to be changed to be able to satisfy the goals of this class.
Evaluation of a source: Orphanet
This source is correctly cited and the authors effectively used the information it provided. I do not think they missed any pertinent information in the article.

Hunter.ar (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I think this article is well-written and gives the necessary information in a clear and succinct manner. I think the section "Prognosis" may be a bit redundant since the only information in it is already stated in the lead paragraph, so I don't know if it is entirely necessary to keep. Another suggestion I have is putting the information that is currently under the "Research" section and distributing it to other sections that the research findings apply to. For example, the sentence about inheritance could go under "Cause". The other information could potentially be put under "Classification" or "Diagnosis". Doing this would allow you to increase the content of the earlier sections and remove the "Research" section which is summarizing a single article. Stromdabomb (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I think you did a nice job overall. The only suggestion I have is to combine the "cause" and "symptoms" section since the cause section is so short. I think it looks a little funny with such little information under the heading and combining the two sections would fix this. Parker443 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

secondary source

OVerall, well done,with the information you were able to find.

I think it would be helpful in the classification section of the disease to go into a little further detail of what lower and upper motor neurons are or the symptoms of monomelic amyotrophy in which you compared madras motor neuron disease to. I know there are links to these but explaining a disease similar to madras motor neuron disease when there is little information about (MDND) may be helpful to the reader in better understanding the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1093connola (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

1) Need sources in the lead 2) Why is 'become thin and weak' linked? 3) Try to have more than one sentence in each paragraph 4) Try to add some more pictures 5) There are a lot of grammar and wording issues, make sure you edit

Overall not bad. It was an interesting page, it just needs some editing. ScientificStarchild (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

For what you all were able to find, you produced an article that was clear and straight to the point. With there being limited information on Madras motor neuron disease, you could possibly merge some of the subtopics that are closely related, like the Prognosis and management, the same might be able to be done for the Symptoms and Causes sections. More images might also be helpful unless those are limited as well.Jjazzpur (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

It realize that there isn’t a lot of info on this disease currently so good job with filling in most of the important info regarding this disease. I would suggest maybe putting that people tend to get this before the age of 15 in the intro section. I was questioning what age you specifically meant when referring to “young” and “young adult” in a later section so putting it earlier would be helpful. Is there any other important info you could add to the history section from the article you mention? This section was very sparse. Also, just a thought, but would it make sense to have the research section as a subsection to history? MWStudent (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

In the introduction, you sound kind of vague saying “when they are young,” so if it were possible to be less vague, I feel that would be less confusing for readers. The entire article seems a little vague, if you could give more detail, I feel like I would be able to understand what MMND is and how it affects individuals in a better way. Some of your writing seems disjointed, like it was written by multiple people rather than one voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshow14 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

Introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by SewellBio (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

Overall, fairly well-written. It gets to the point without getting distracted and maintains neutrality throughout. All of the sources appear to be properly formatted and verifiable (though a few may be primary articles, be careful). A few quick typos: "most cases arises" (should be "arise"). "Progressively more weak" (used a few times, consider using "progressively weaker"). MMMD is used a few times (under Symptoms section, should be MMND). Under Classification: considered re-wording to something like this, “Madras motor neuron disease (MMND) is a motor neuron disease that primarily affects lower motor neurons, but also upper motor neurons. It is similar to Monomelic amyotrophy in that is a motor neuron disease that primarily affects young adults in India.” In the next paragraph under Classification, possibly re-word to something like “and another type that may have a genetic basis, which they suggested be called…” Also, for the Classification section, consider clarifying why it’s classified as an orphan disease. For instance, maybe say that because of the rarity of the disease and the inadequate existence of treatments, it is classified as an orphan disease. Under Symptoms: consider re-wording to something like this, “The body of a person with MMND is generally thin and weak, and will increasingly get weaker and thinner with age. They also may lose the ability to control the muscles in their face, mouth, nose, and throat, and lose their ability to speak and swallow. They may drool and parts of their face may droop.” Epidemiology covers determinants. Consider removing the Causes section and moving that information into Epidemiology. Under Diagnosis, remove the red hyperlinks. For History: A little more would be nice (such as progress/new discoveries that have come up over the years). Another thing to possible add a little more flavor to the page could be the insertion of an image that highlights some of the morphological symptoms of an individual with the disease, just a thought. Your first source (Liewluck, Teerin; Saperstein, David S (November 2015). "Progressive Muscular Atrophy". In Dimachkie, Mazen M.; Barohn, Richard J. Motor Neuron Disease, An Issue of Neurologic Clinics. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 766. ISBN 9780323413459) is a solid issue of clinical reviews on NMDs published in 2015. The source is correctly cited and the information that was used aligns with what the authors said. Mknut3 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

We write in plain English per WP:MEDMOS. The suggested content in Symptoms for rewording is fine. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for all those suggestions. We went through the entire article and made many changes including the ones you mentioned. Also thank you for suggesting that we mention monomelic amyotrophy, but when we were researching this topic, we found a different motor neuron disease, which was more closely linked to madras motor neuron disease and we have already mentioned that motor neuron disease in this article. For history, there hasn't been any new discoveries or much progress made on trying to treat the disease. The only update there has been in this disease is new case studies which has only reiterated information found in previous case studies. We are also looking into adding more pictures for different sections of this article. HarshPatel1 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Harsh P.

Student Primary Review

1. Well written

Overall the article flows well however it seems like you could add more information to each section. I understand that the information for the disease is probably limited but it may be helpful to compare the inherited type versus the spontaneous type in some sections, if that information is available. Perhaps there is a difference in prognosis for the two types. I don't see any grammatical errors that the other reviewers have not already pointed out. But I do agree that some of the sentences could be reworded to flow better. For example the sentence that begins "The person may be losing control of the muscles" where you start in the present progressive tense it flows strangely because you then change back to the simple present tense. Most stylistic changes are somewhat nitpicky like the one I just mentioned, but overall it is well done. My only real critique is the lack of information in some sections but I understand that it may be difficult to obtain.

2. Verifiable with no original research

You appear to have cited all of your claims well, but I would agree with another reviewer who mentioned that you need a citation at the end of the description paragraph. I saw no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in coverage

I don't see your goal on your talk page so it's difficult to tell what your plan for the page is. You cover a wide range of topics on the diseases in a similar style to other motor neuron diseases.

4. Neutral

I don't see any major biases on your page.

6. Illustrated

More images would be good to give more information about the disease since your information is limited. Maybe a picture of the nerves you reference in the diagnosis section

Evaluation of a source: Nalini, A;

The authors use this source well but it seems like there is more good information they could use to expand the article. I see information about the differences in prognosis for males versus females which is certainly useful. The article is reliable as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines for articles on medicine.

Kickpuncher08 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Response from Authors

1. We read back through and made minor grammatical changes in reference to yours, and others', responses. In response to the comparison between inherited vs. spontaneous, they have the same symptoms as they are the same disease.

2. We cited our sources immediately after we state the information, not necessarily at the end of the paragraph.

3. Sorry for not addressing this earlier. This was a complete stub and everything here is new.

4. Thanks for reviewing.

6. We agreed to add a diagram off your suggestion.

Thanks for taking your time to respond. Pfletch (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

Introduction The introductory paragraph is extremely short and seems a bit vague. This is an opportunity to provide an overview of what is to be discussed in the article. Provide a few sentences that sums the gist of each category that was provided. The language in this paragraph could use some refinement. We added a lot more information and clarified the wordingGoc cimane (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Classification Clarify the similarity between MMND and Monomeric amyotrophy. Based on the reference, the similarity is the affect on upper motor neurons. It would be helpful to specify how the upper and lower motor neurons are affected; what exactly occurs. This section in general needs more detail. The statements are very brief and short and could use explanation. Although you provided a link for "orphan disease," a brief definition would be useful. This prevents the need to immediately click the link to obtain a definition for the word while reading the article.

Symptoms This paragraph is adequate but again it is very short.

Diagnosis Identify which imaging techniques and describe how a neural examination is useful in diagnosis. It is stated that MMND can be differentially diagnosed from other similar conditions however, there is no concise explanation on how these conditions are similar and/or different. This category provides an opportunity to go into more detail as there seems to be more detail on the other conditions described that could be compared/ contrasted with MMND. Management, Prognosis, and Epidemiology are each about one sentence in length and should be added to this section somehow. Otherwise writing at least one paragraph for each section would suffice.

Research This section presents more detail and information than previously provided. Lots of scientific terms are introduced and I believe should be organized in a way that does not cause confusion for the general audience. Subcategories could include; Inheritance, Postmodern studies, etc (These are only suggestions). However, it is a well written paragraph but I believe it may be confusing for some. The wording in previous sections could use some refinement to match the voice in this section.

Sources Based on the sources provided, it seems that there was not much information available on this topic. A few of your sources did not provide much information. However, with those that you have, I believe you could have provided more detail. There some treatments mentioned in one of your article that was not introduced in this article.

Overall This page has a good foundation to build on. You did good with what you have but try to extract more information from your sources. There was some detail the sources referenced that could have been added to categories such as Management. You may also want to consider rearranging the order of your sections. (User talk: User:SewellBio) 16:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments added in the midst of another editors in comments, in this diff, were extracted and moved below. Do not write inside another editor's comments. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments at Classification: There are a lot of distinctions provided in the diagnosis section. We added a quick definition of orphan disease. Goc cimane (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments at Symptoms: ThanksGoc cimane (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments at Diagnosis: There is very little between these different diseases, so the minimum symptoms are the only things defining them. Added a picture of the nerves afflicted. Provided an example of the imaging techniquesGoc cimane (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments at Research: Unfortunately, the most information present in this topic is the research. I think that the more difficult parts of the research have enough links within it to help clarify some of the more "science heavy" materialGoc cimane (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments at Sources: I'm not sure what source you're referring to, but it's possible that you were reading symptoms from another disease.Goc cimane (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments at Overall: Thanks for all your hard workGoc cimane (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review

Checked over number of M's throughout article and changed "orphan disease" line. Also reworded 9th and 12 cranial nerve line.

We decided to keep prognosis section, made grammatical edits to make it more unique

We cited our sources immediately after we state the information, not necessarily at the end of the paragraph.

Added some pictures to article

Thanks for review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MU golden eagle (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HarshPatel1, MU golden eagle, Goc cimane, Pfletch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)