Talk:Camptocormia

Untitled

Hello all! We are a part of an academic group from Marquette University and we are currently editing this article as a part of a class project. The article is currently a work in progress, but can be found on my user sandbox- Johnmleclaire . Please Contact me for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmleclaire (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 March 2016 (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): E torres97, Johnmleclaire, Xiaoyi1991, CameronLangeMU.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Instructions to Authors

Camptocormia(BSS) was researched and discussed primary as a symptom of a multitude of diseases. This article does not discuss a form of Camptocormia in relation to one disease over another, but the primary factors that present themselves in most cases. This includes the muscular causes and neurological causes of BSS, and as well as this, both Primary BSS and Secondary BSS were discussed in detail. A vareity of secondary sources and case studies were utilized to compile the information neccesary to contstruct this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E torres97 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review by 0272thinkap

6 Criteria of a Good Article

1. The article is well written and organized. The headings are appropriate and the grammar and syntax seems to be satisfactory. Minor corrections should be made to the “Characteristics and Symptoms” section, as I believe the second sentence in this section is incomplete. Aside from this, the article looks good!

2. The article is written appropriately, verifiable with no original research. The sources are cited correctly throughout the text and also placed in a “references” section at the bottom of the page.

3. The article is excellent in its coverage, as it covers a broad spectrum of the different aspects of camptocormia. The headings are appropriate and are used to easily navigate through the text.

4. The article is written from a neutral standpoint.

5. (Not Evaluated)

6. The illustrations of the man with camptocormia are helpful at the beginning of the article. Additionally, images in the “Diagnosis” section would also be helpful-but not necessary.

Additionally, I verified the 3rd source used in the article. I found that the authors represented the material correctly with no issues in its presentation or citation.

0272thinkap (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)0272thinkap

Response to 0272thinkap

Hello, thanks for taking your time to read and comment on our article. Based on your suggestions, we have completed the second sentence in the “Characteristics and Symptoms” section and fixed several other grammatical error and wordings. We uploaded an image of spinal muscle biopsy in the "Diagnosis" section to illustrate intense endomysial deposit of fibrosis and fatty infiltration. We hope these changes will make this article more readable and understandable. Again, thanks for your comments.
Xiaoyi1991 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review from Hphan1719

This article contains useful and unbiased information. I like the idea of short and long sentences are distributed equally throughout the article. However, there are a few grammar errors which may lower the quality of the article. Maybe it's just me, the "Outcome/ Prognosis," "History (the first two sentences)," "Society and Culture" do not seem to well-connect with other parts when being placed almost at the end of the article. In my opinion, since they provide general information (history, distribution, etc.), they should be combined with the "Characteristics and Symptoms" part as sub-headings. The rest of the "History" part should be combined with the "Treatment, Management and Prevention" part since it shows how clinical scientists approach to the treatments. Since the "Special population" part doesn't play any key role different than the "Society and Culture" part, I think it should be combined with the latter. Again, these are just my opinions; others may not feel the same way.

The .png file from Pathology Heading does not show on my computer. I am not sure if this is my personal problem. If it shows up on your computers, I guess you don't have to worry about this. There is also an error for Reference #11.

I apologize if there is any inconvenience in my feedback,

Hphan1719 (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review from SEReichert

I think you guys made a strong contribution to this article. However, I think that you could benefit from making a few changes in order to raise the quality of your article.

First, I think that you should dissolve the 'Classification' heading of your article and add that paragraph under the main 'Camptocormia' heading. I think that this will be more aesthetically pleasing to have a general description of the syndrome about the contents section of your page.

The first criteria of a good article is that it is well-written. Generally, I think the lead sections and layout look well put together. However, I think grammar of the article needs to be looked out. For example, in the 'Characteristics and symptoms' section, the sentence "This bending becomes worse while walking but does not appear when the affected individual," does not seem to be complete. Also in this section, I think there should be a comma between endocrine disorders and inflammatory conditions. These are only a few examples of grammar mistakes in the article, but there are also others that should be fixed. Furthermore, there are some weirdly worded sections that should be changed. For example, in the 'Pathology' section, the first sentence would flow better if it was written, 'When Camptocormia was initially identified, it was classified as..." I think it would benefit your article greatly if you rechecked the grammar and wording.

The second criteria for a good article is that it is verifiable with no original research. It looks like all of your references are cited correctly and that you used correct in-line citations. I reviewed your fifth reference, "Camptocormia: the bent spine syndrome, an update." This source meets the criteria that qualifies it as a secondary source in medicine as defined by Wikipedia. This source says what the authors said it did, it is a review article, it is published in a reputable medical journal, and it appears to be a reliable, third-party published secondary source.

The third quality of a good article is that it is broad in its coverage. It seems like your article does a sufficient job at addressing the main aspects of Camptocormia as well as staying focused. However, it may help the overall flow of your article to make the muscular origin section of the 'Pathology' section and the 'Diagnosis' section more brief, as both of these sections go into a lot of detail.

The fourth criteria of a good article is that it is neutral. I think that your article has this quality, as it references twelve different sources throughout the page and it represents each of the viewpoints without editorial bias.

The final quality of a well-written article is that there are illustrations. I think it should be noted that the images 'Primary BSS' and 'Fatty Infiltration of Paravertebral Muscles' cannot be seen from your page. When I click on the link to the images, it states that the files have been deleted or moved. So, I would suggest taking these file down and replacing them with something else. Also, the length of your page is great, but I think it may benefit from one or two more photos, as some of the sections are very dense with only writing (which is great, but additional illustrations would aid in the explanation of your topic).

I think that this a very good start to the Camptocormia page and by making the above changes, I think that it could become a strong contribution to Wikipedia!

SEReichert (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to SEReichert

Thank you for pointing out grammar mistakes in the articles and how the overall flow of the article needed some work. We have made some edits to the article in hopes that it now flows well and has no grammar issues. As well as this, I have trimmed down the pathology section and added some images in order to keep the article a bit more brief and have a more aesthetic appeal to it. Hopefully we have resolved all issues mentioned in your review. Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E torres97 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This is an interesting topic with a lot of info on this page. I was confused by the use of BSS and BBS; BSS was referred to in the beginning of the article but I never saw reference to BBS. Additionally some of the things you stated under "muscular origin" seemed out of place-like the treatment or biopsy, especially since you had those sections later on. I think overall the organization needs some work. The headers don't follow a clear cut path and some of them could be merged together-quality over quantity. Pottera1129 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Pottera1129

Thanks for your comments. "BBS" was a typo, which should be "BSS" standing for bent spine syndrome. We are sorry to cause any confusion. In the "muscular origin" section, we keep the sentence that briefly explain that primary and secondary BSS could be distinguished by biopsy. We think it is OK to mention biopsy method briefly and then explain it in detail in later section.
Xiaoyi1991 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall, I think your article is very well developed and nicely organized. The sections allow for easy navigation around your article and I felt like I got a good understanding of what Camptocormia is by the end of the page. Apart from some glaring grammatical and spelling errors, which I’m sure are just there because this is just the first draft, there are some things I would change. The characteristics and symptoms section could be a bit more organized and expanded on. You could consider merging this section with the outcome/prognosis section, since the two provide related information. The pathology section, while overall informative, was slightly difficult to read partly because of some undefined terms. I would link to the myopathy Wikipedia page for that term and briefly explain what is meant by “fatty infiltration” like you have later on in the Diagnosis section. I think the rest of the article is fine, I especially like that you have a section on History and Society and Culture. Also, make sure to fix the image links, two of the images linked are not viewable.

The source I checked was the one by Lenoir et al. in References under 2, 5, 6, 7, and 12 (it should be listed just once, be sure to fix that). I think overall you made very good use of the article. It’s rich in information about your topic and as far as I can tell it was cited properly in almost all instances that it was used. However, when it is cited in the Muscular origin subsection of the Pathology section, the wording comes a bit too close to the wording in the article.

I hope my input helps, and I hope I wasn’t too critical. I think this article will be great!

AleksNemo (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to AleksNemo

Thank you very much for reviewing are article! The spelling and grammar changes were fixed. As far as the sections go, we did a bit of reorganization- such grouping our history and society sections together and putting the Treatment and prognosis sections under one heading. We felt that these changes would help streamline the information and make our article easier to read. The pathology section was revised with links and content changes. The pictures were reloaded and verified. We are currently trying to resolve the issue with the sources, as those are difficult to edit without deleting the whole thing. Johnmleclaire (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall I think there is a lot of good, quality information in the article. I would recommend linking some of the terms in your article to Wikipedia articles, such as thoracolumbar, flexion, psychogenic, etc. Also the 2nd sentence in characteristics and symptoms does not make sense grammatically. Additionally I’m confused why there was a switching back and forth between BBS and BSS. It was confusing to tell the difference between these two if they are different or if it was just a typo. Maybe it might be clearer to just use camptocormia instead of BSS to eliminate the confusion. Vschloegel (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

First thing I would suggest is linking or explaining some of the medical terms mentioned in the article, especially ones in the introduction. It doesn't seem fair to assume the average Wiki reader knows what these things mean. Check for spelling/grammatical issues. There are several throughout, but these are easy fixes. Also, it looks like there may be an issue with your reference #10. Overall, though, this is an interesting topic and the page is very well done and well organized. Good job. Moosejammies (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Very good article overall there are a few sentences which trail off like the first sentence of characteristics and symptoms. The first sentence of pathology also reads a bit funny, it does not need to be changed but could read more fluidly. I would also look at addressing the final sentence of characteristics and symptoms and adding something about why this syndrome is associated with the other diseases you name (if they possibly also affect the basal ganglia). If there is any more information on the genes that may be a good place to puff up your article and add relevant information as well. The society and culture and special populations headings could also use some citations in them. They seem logical and true but having an expert or source to back it up looks even better. Otherwise, the article looks really good. ErikEastwood (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, there was a lot of information which was great. After reading it, I do not feel like I do not know enough information. The information was also unbiased and seems to have been taken from credible sources. The citing of your sources all seem accurate as well. I would suggest proof reading the article for there were a few grammatical errors, but everything was easy to understand for the average reader, I think. I think everything was introduced and broken up well, but check a little bit for redundancy. Overall, I think it was very well written, there could just be a few tweaks here and there.

Jmankow (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

A good article that contains a lot of very interesting and useful information. However the flow of the article comes off as a stating of facts in a list like manner, especially in the characteristics and symptoms area section. The information however, is organized in a manner that is very easy to follow making it easier to understand Camptocormia. Overall good work, covered a very wide scope of everything that camptocormia effects. Try to add more information about gene mutations if possible. Andrewh998 (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary review

Overall it was a good draft. You mentioned good points about its origin and thoroughly explained the causes and effects. The content was good, but there were some sentences that became confusing, such as the first sentence under Pathology. I will suggest you to be able to elaborate more in your sentences, such as "BBS consists of primary BSS and secondary BSS". I was quite lost in what each were, and if one lead to the other if one went without treatment. I would advise to add a paragraph explaining what primary entailed and a separate one for secondary. I really liked that you had a picture to demonstrate the disease.--BCBF13 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)BCBF13

Primary Review by G.T.L.Neuro

Overall I'd say that the article is a pretty good first draft, and it really only has a few places where the grammar or wordings. In the first sentence, "which is" can be removed so that it flows better. Then later on when it mentions the throacolumbar spinal flexion, maybe explain what that means, or provide some sort of link so that it doesn't sound as technical. Later on it looks like a sentence got cut off at, "The bending becomes worse while walking but does not appear when the affected individual." Add whatever should be at the end of the sentence. Later on it says, "This bending must be exaggerated with an anterior flexion of greater than 45 degrees." This sentence seems slightly out of place here, maybe move it closer to the beginning like after the first sentence. "Lower back pain is also a common symptom." This is the only symptom that I really see here, so either add more symptoms, or make this sentence less choppy in the flow of the paragraph. There are a few more small edits like these that are scattered throughout the writing that I think you should go back and look out for, but for the most part it is well written.

The article that I verified was the first article by Shinjo, titled "Camptocormia: A Rare Axial Myopathy Disease" The group definitely says what is presented in the article and it appears to be well represented and correctly cited to boot.

The broadness of the coverage is also well done, as it covers pretty much every aspect of the disease that can be thought of. Prognosis, diagnosis, symptoms - though this one could be expanded upon, and so on.

The article is definitely neutral and well represented.

Illustrations are a part where the article is sort of lacking, as there is only one picture. Maybe add in some more pictures interspersed throughout, like for prognosis or diagnosis, or even symptoms.

G.T.L.Neuro (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

response

In reference to G.T.L.Neuro's review, as a group, we have taken steps to look over the entire article to not only add flow, but to fix any grammatical issues and/or spelling issues. "which is" was removed from the first sentence to create more of a flow. Thoracolumbar spinal flexion was explained. Fragments were corrected. Because the disease doesn't have much research data, diagnosis data was hard to come by and is limited. Pictures were added in order to add more flare to the article. Thanks again for the primary review. CameronLangeMU (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)CameronLangeMU (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)