Talk:Autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia/Archive 1

Peer Edit #1

Instead of writing: Pathology: ADCA Subtypes. Maybe just list it as ADCA subtypes.
For the first paragraph in Type 1 ADCA, separating out the subtypes by paragraphs will make it easier to follow.
The symptoms and diagnosis section is confusing. The format of how the symptoms are listed are different in each paragraph which makes it hard to follow. For example, in the first paragraph, it reads “Focusing on Ataxia type I, the most common disorder, which displays they symptoms of motor impairment, optic atrophy, oculomotor paralysis, and intelligence disorders.” Later on it reads “In type I ataxia, equilibrium disorders indicate the presence of the disease. Speech production disorders are also another sign of cerebellum damage.” There is no connection between them or it needs to be rearranged so that it flows better (this goes for the whole paragraph). Also to be consistent, stick to either Ataxia Type 1 or Type 1 ataxia.
Overall, the content was very informative, the format just needs to be revised.KSirWillis (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

Thank you for input. We reformatted the subtypes and gave each their own section for clarification and ease of reading. We have also made sure to be consistent with terminology and stuck to Type 1 ADCA.IJWMarq (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In this article I would suggest rereading the Pathology Type 1 section because there were some writing errors in that paragraph. The references must also be cited properly. I would suggest viewing this webpage to review the citing process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources. As well as adding some more wikilinks to the article. Overall, I thought it was an okay article. Very informative, but must be free of writing errors. Daner33 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

The section on Type 1 ADCA has been proofread and should now be free of error. Citation was originally a problem because of poor editing on our part but it has been fixed. We believe that the article now has a substantial amount of links out to other pages for clarification to readers who may be confused with terminology. Thank you for your input! IJWMarq (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Peer Edit

Overall, I thought the page looked pretty good as a rough draft. However, I found a few minor details that needed to be accounted for.
I found the information on the types of ADCA to be difficult to follow when written as it is. Find a way to neatly space out the subtypes from one another to give the reader less of a word jumble.
Some of the grammar and information placed in the Symptoms and Diagnosis paragraph also need a little work. For example, there is no need for the "Focusing on Ataxia Type 1..." in the third sentence. Rather, simply start with "Ataxia type 1...". Also, in the reference from buffalo.edu, there is a sentence that is exactly the same as a sentence in this article. From the reference, it states, "Later, paralysis of specific types of eye muscles, swallowing disorders, and impairment of the sphincter function can be associated to the primary condition.". You state, "Later, paralysis of specific types of eye muscles, swallowing disorders, and impairment of the sphincter function can be associated to the primary condition". This is word for word and needs to be changed.
I think this is a great start to a well-written article, but needs to be altered slightly and cleansed of grammar mistakes. Dkoallpro (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

Thank you for your input. We have reformatted the types of ADCA for ease of reading by spacing them out into their own sections. Grammatic edits have been made and phrases have been reworded to sound less awkward including the one you specifically mentioned. The article is also clear of plagiarism in it's current state. Thank you for calling attention to these errors.IJWMarq (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Edit (Primary)

1. Under “Types” put subtypes/subclasses in own sub-section of Pathology. This will cause less confusion when reading the material presented about the subtypes of each type of ADCA. Having the subtypes integrated into each type makes reading each section hard to follow and I found myself reading the same sentences over and over because I began to get confused between each subtype. Or, place each subtype as a bullet point or numbered point within the Type category: i.e. Subtypes
   1. Subtype 1
   2. Subtype 2
   3. Subtype 3 etc.
2. The first reference under ‘’Type 1’’ is worded awkwardly. The sentence should have more flow to it: A genetic mutation causes the third subtype which includes SCA13, SCA14, SCA15/16, SCA 27, and SCA28.
3. First reference under ‘’Type 2/3’’: the sentence is simply re-wording what is written in the article. Try to reword so to not be docked for plagiarism. Also, maybe a sentence or () could be used to give a brief description or examples of “pigmentary maculopathies” since it is a unique category of syndromes.
4. ‘’Type 2/3’’ – good explanation of SCA7. This explanation helped me to understand the symptoms or characteristics of one of the subtypes of ADCA. However, “cerebellar” should be changed to cerebellum to flow with tense the sentence is written in.
5. ‘’Type 2/3’’ – The following sentence should be referenced with your 2nd reference on the list (Harry T. Orr Cell biology of spinocerebellar ataxia). After reading the section on “SCA7 and SCA17” I noticed the information in the above sentence was presented in said article.
6. Refrain from using phrases like “as previously mentioned” or “as referred to previous,” etc. between sections because this is not a typical written class assignment, it is an encyclopedia-type article and each section (although a part of a single article) is unique and an individual looking for information does not want to have to refer back to another section in order to find the answer or information they are looking for.
7. ‘’Symptoms and Diagnosis’’ – the following sentence is almost exactly worded as a sentence in your 3rd reference: “This disorder is most frequently associated with the impairment of proprioception (perception of one's body parts in space)” compared to “These disorders are most frequently associated with the impairment of proprioception (perception of one's body parts in space)” .
8. Treatments and Management is concise and provides known information (although there is not currently much at this time) about treating ADCA.

Overall, the article needs to be looked over. The information presented in the article was interesting to read but it was difficult easily read the information because the article lacks flow. Also, be careful with your references; there are some places where your sentences are very similar to those in the articles (and some are not referenced at all even though I cam across them reading the articles you referenced). Again, the information was very interesting and the Treatments and Management section was very clearly and concisely written, but the article needs some adjustments. Isetem13 (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC

Edit Response

Thanks for all the input, you had a lot of really awesome advice. We modified the subtype page to make it more readable. We addressed the possible plagerism and addressed the issue of common tense in our subtype page. Some of the language in the paragraphs was addressed to make it more scientific and less of an English paper. We really appreciate all your input. There was a lot of good information for us to address. Egreaga (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall the article is very informative and well written. The paragraphs under pathology though are a bit confusing. The paragraph on type one was a bit awkward to read. I had to reread it multiple times in order to follow what it was saying so you might want to consider rewording it. Also the paragraph for type 2/3 is confusing. You fail to really mention type 3. Is there a difference between the two? if not why are there three types? You need to make this clear to the reader. The remaining paragraphs flow smoothly and are very informative.Tnasci1313 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "sandbox" from the top of the page. MMBiology (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

Thank you for your input. We have taken your review into consideration and added more information on Type 3 to distinguish Type 3 from Type 2. Additionally, we have included the importance of seperating these different Types when dealing with clinical situations.. Thanks again for your help. Cdrellishak (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary review

Many of the points I am going to make have already been said above. I read through the article one time and had a relatively hard time understanding what the information was showing. The two type paragraphs, type 1 and type 2/3 (which I am confused as to why type three is included in this section when it was almost all about type 2), the information was very clumped together. It may be difficult for a non-science person to understand this material. Try to space out the terminology with explanations and basic descriptions. The other paragraphs were relatively easy to understand but there are a few terms that need to either be explained or linked. Someone who is not familiar with science terminology may not understand some of the terms that are used unless they are explicitly described or linked to another page. All in all, however, the information was sufficient and precise. Just the presentation needs a bit more work. Sammyt21 (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

Thank you for your review in helping us stregthen the article. Taking your review into consideration, we included more information on Type 3 to seperate its characteristics from Type 2. Additionally, we added some links to certain medical terminology (such as histone acetyltransferase and transcription) that may not be easily defined by someone not familiar with science terminology. Thank you for your input. Cdrellishak (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review

I don't want to be too repetitive, but the first to review did say many of the things that I would suggest for improvement on the article. First of all, going along with what has already been said, the pathology section was a bit convoluted and hard to follow. I found myself getting confused and having to go back and reread or reference many times. I think going through the first two reviewers suggestions for improvement and clarity would be the best course of action. For symptoms and diagnosis I wonder if these could be divided into two topics individually so as to make them more distinct and stand out better. They each have enough information to stand alone, and I feel like there could be further development of each topic as well.

I looked at the first citation listed, and again would agree with previous reviewers. Be careful with citations and make sure you cite anything you take from other articles so as not to get accused of plagiarism. Also there were many facts just within the first article's abstract that I felt could have been included in your article to more fully develop topics. You could add in how the founder affect contributes to this disease and it mentions other signs/symptoms that could be added. I think going back through all the sources and making sure each is used to their full capacity would really benefit in the growth and depth of this article.

Overall this is a great start, but I feel like the ideas could be explored a bit more, I'm not sure how much literature is available for use though. I would just be careful when referring to scientific terms or ideas for those readers who are not in neurobiology courses, or any science background. By adding in a description or link this could be avoided. Another suggestion would be to add in a picture of a chromosome or the mutation or even one of the brain and spinal cord that this disease effects.Ckbiology (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

As far as your comments concerning the article being difficult to follow, we have reformatted the article and divided it into more sections so that it is easy to understand. We have made sure to fix all of our errors with citation as well. We were able to expand a bit with the information from our sources and have added the necessary wikilinks to ensure that the reader can understand what is written without background knowledge. IJWMarq (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall the article is well written with a few areas that could be reviewed and enhanced. In the second line of the article the word “know” should be known. Also, while reading this article, I had to do a little side research to really understand the topic. There could possibly be a clearer explanation of what the disease is. For example instead of saying it is just a type of spinocerebellar ataxia, there could be some information on how the disease is generally characterized. The other things that I would suggest have been already mentioned in prior peer reviews. However, this is a great starting draft, just be sure to be informative enough so that the reader doesn’t have to leave the page as much if they are not scientist.MinnieMee (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

Thank you for your input. We have corrected the second line of the article to include "known" instead of "know". We have expanded the introduction to include more information on what the disease is. We have also noted in our article clinical uses for seperating the different Types. Thank you for your help in making our article better. Cdrellishak (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall good article. I think there are a few things that could be improved upon.

1. The introduction to the article could give a little more information about the disease itself and what it causes. Otherwise the reader is thrown into the genetics of the disease without really knowing what autosomal cerebellar ataxia causes. The other option would be to switch signs and symptoms with the genetic side.

2. The first paragraph of signs and symptoms has some English and grammar errors that could use some work. There are other errors that can be fixed with a read through but this paragraph stood out in terms of errors.

3. I checked out the first reference you have down- the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. Under its management of the disease section it mentions like you do that there is no cure. It also talks about managing some of the symptoms and what can be done to manage those. I think that would be good to include.LDNeurobio (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)LDNeurobio

Edit Response

Thanks for the comments. We were concerned with a lack of information or content in the introduction paragraph as well. We added some information to expand on "degeneration" and some of the effects. The new information explains what is meant by degeneration and how a loss of signal communication results in a loss or impairment of muscle control. Egreaga (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary ReviewBig text
This article can use a little improvement. It has a good start, but I think the word "subtype" is used too much and therefore causes confusion. I did enjoy seeing a picture because it helped visually imagine what was being talked about. My suggestion is to either "dumb-down" the article so that a patient or uneducated person could understand it or add more hyperlinks in so that if someone didn't understand a specific term they could find out really quick. Again, you have a really good start, but I'm hoping you will take some of my constructive criticism into consideration.
Caseymunger (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Response

Thank you for your input. We have taken your review into consideration and have added a few hyperlinks to allow the reader to easily look up some more advanced medical terminology for clarification. Additionally, we have tried to improve our article by simplifying as much of the paragraphs as we could, such as the Symptoms section. Thank you again for your advice in helping us stregthen our article. Cdrellishak (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Faculty Review

There appears to be a lot of information out there on cerebellar ataxias. This is good and bad for you. You should have been able to find a lot of information for your article but at the same time you had to sift through what was really relevant for the autosomal dominant form. There is a great deal of information on the spinocerebellar ataxia page that should have been helpful. In general the writing was well done and I only made a few small grammatical changes or fixes of typos. However, some of the sections are short and could be explained better. For example when describing the three subtypes of Type 1, it would be interesting to know what makes them a different subtype. With subtype 1 and 2 you did this to some extent but there is no information on subtype 3 to explain why it is different than 1 and 2 or even why it is in the overall class of type 1.

I think that maybe you should have stated that the different SCAs all refer to different genetic mutations. That is clear to me but may not be to the lay reader. The section on Type 2/3 is very technical about histone acetyltransferase. I am worried that things are not explained well enough for a lay reader to understand why histone modification is important. I am not sure what to do about that.

Were edits done on 4/25 by one of your group? There is no username, just an IP address associated with these changes.

Under type 2/3 you have frequency (misspelled) and genetics that refers to all three types? Why are they subheadings? Oops, this was added by someone outside of class. I should have checked the history before commenting.

Under treatment and management, you suggest that at least one type can be reversed and in the next sentence you say it can't?

Be very careful in this article and in the future not to "cut and paste" from other sources. Your reviewers found quite a few instances where you were relying a bit too heavily on your sources. MMBiology (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)