Talk:Nemaline myopathy

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): EKallsen, Mr.green2911, MecciaC0410.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This page was very informative and well written. One suggestion would be to maybe put the history section in the beginning of the page, instead of at the end. Another thing is to try and improve the way the sentences flow and punctuation, specifically comma insertion. Some sentences that were awkward in wording included the second sentence in the Physical Characteristics and Effects section and the middle sentence in the Signs and Symptoms section. Also, the first sentence of the Treatment section is the exact first sentence in the Prevention section, so I would suggest either rewording that sentence or just deleting it. Besides the grammar fixes, this page was written well and provided a lot of information on the topic. Great job! Kclarke11 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the review. We did decide to move the history section and we have been proofreading and fixed the few sentences you pointed out.MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This is a well written article. Besides grammar, I did not find a whole lot wrong with it. I would suggest that you link to your reference numbers a little more. You have a few paragraphs that have no reference number in them. I thought you did a good job at putting links into the article. All that were hyperlinked were appropriately done so. I especially appreciated how detailed the signs and symptoms part was. Good article. Garrettmu18 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Garrett

Response

Thanks for the review. We have been adding references this past week and proofreading the article. MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall well written. I liked how everything was specified so it made it easier to read and understand. There were grammar errors, but this is a minor detail. Well written and easy to follow. --Ewiegand (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the review. We have been working on grammar and proofreading. MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review from Hphan1719

Overall, the page is well-written. As someone who speaks English as a second language, I hardly find any grammar errors. However, it doesn’t hurt to check. For the “Good Article Criteria,” I think it’s easier to follow if I do it this way:

1. Well written: Like stating above, I really enjoy reading the article yet there may be a few grammar errors which I cannot find. I know you guys follow the guideline from Wikipedia, but I personally think it makes more sense to put the “History and Early Identification” at the beginning of the article. Again, this is just my personal preference, since you guys follow the guideline so I think you guys are all set for this part.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Your 2nd reference isn’t in the right format. I have read one of your reference articles, “Nemaline myopathy,” from www.socialstyrelsen.se. The article provides a fair amount of information and concludes primary results from other research publications. However, I strongly suggest using the tool in Wikipedia to cite your references since some of them, especially your first reference, lack lots of essential information, such as publishers, releasing dates, etc.

3. Broad in its coverage: The article is very informatics. There are a few places I feel like you guys go off track. However, as I keep going, you have successfully linked everything together. Therefore, there isn’t any place where I find unnecessary. On one hand, I think it is a good idea for your article to be more detailed. On the other hand, digging deeper easily makes you go off track and turns your article into a medical journal. Therefore, overall, I think it’s nice job on this part.

4. Neutral: In general, this article stays neutral. However, there are a few words which can certainly make your article sound like it is expressing an idea. For example, in the “Nemaline Community” part, it is well-known that the word “respiratory deficiency” already has a negative tone. When combining with “life threatening,” it turns your statement into a warning. Again, this is just my opinion. I also like the idea that you state “the reason is unclear at this time” since some people probably choose not to mention it because it makes the article sounds weak. However, by stating this, you guys have demonstrated your ability to make sure the article stays as neutral as possible.

5. Stable: It is not like there is anything for this topic to make it controversial or unstable. It simply provides information for the audience.

6. Illustrated: You guys make a good use of your tables. I like the idea of referring back to the table when you guys writing each section. This criterion is satisfied nicely.

I apologize if there is any inconvenience in my feedback, Hphan1719 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for your review. We really appreciated your comments. We have been proofreading and we fixed the format of the source. And thanks for your comments on the neutral section. We found them really helpful when proofreading to look at it from a different point of view. MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall this article is informative and written well. As always there will be minor errors with wording and proper sentence flow. One part I liked in particular was the Mechanism section – this part was very informative and went into deeper depth when going into the genetics of the myopathy. A suggestion in the signs and symptoms section; there are a couple of run on sentences and very broad intro to sentence words such as , “For young ones,” This is too broad, I would suggest to formulate these sentences differently. Although they contain pertinent information they are kept from its actual grammatical expression in such it could degrades their meaning. One other suggestion I have for this article is to include an image. Possibly in the signs and symptoms categories; by having a visual aid it could help the reader have a better understanding on the physical affects this myopathy has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertoenriquez (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for your review. We have been proofreading and appreciate your comments on how some things were to broad. We did add a picture but not in the signs and symptoms section. We couldn't find any pictures of people that had NM and didn't really think a picture of a person struggling with the disease was appropriate.MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, this article was very well written and provided useful information. There are just a couple grammatical errors that should be changed by adding commas. A couple of sentences are a bit awkward, so I would do a quick read through to make the sentences flow a little more. I agree with the review below, that the history section should be moved to the beginning of the article. It may be useful to add a picture to your article to help readers visualize/understand some of the information. Otherwise, great job! Emnett1031 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the review. We've been proofreading and decided to move the history section. We've also added a picture and are thinking about adding another. MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall, there was a lot of information present in the article which was very good to see. You covered everything about the disease that should be covered! It is very informative and written in language that is not too difficult to understand, which is good. There were, however, a few grammar errors, so it would not hurt to go back and proof read the post before it is graded. Also, I suggest that you link "sarcomeres" when they are first introduced and look out for that for other words that should be linked. Also, the Mechanisms section was great, but consider adding smaller headings to the different NM types just to make it easier to follow and easier to find if someone is looking to read about a certain type. You were very broad in coverage which is great. I did not leave with any questions about NM. The article was also very neutral and unbiased which is important in a post about a medical condition. I do suggest maybe putting a picture of sarcomeres in someone with NM versus someone without. I was curious as to what those look like, and I think it would add a little something to the article!

There are a few issues with the sources. The only secondary source I could find of the ones I checked was #3 "Clinical course correlates poorly with muscle pathology in nemaline myopathy". This one looked pretty good and consistent with your article. I checked a few others, and while your information is consistent with what these articles write, they are not necessarily credible based on Wikipedia's criteria. First of all, make sure that you source them correctly. I suggest using Wikipedia in cite for it does it for you. Simply putting the link is not correct formatting, I am pretty sure. Your 2nd source even says it has a cite error, and you used this source a lot, so definitely take a look at that. Your 6th source "Muscle Disorders: MedlinePlus" did not look like a review (secondary) article. It is very informative, but it is not a secondary source. Also number 8, "Nemaline Myopathy" seemed like a tertiary source rather than a secondary. Again, it had a lot of information and while that information may be right, secondary sources are preferred. I know it can be hard to find secondary articles especially for diseases that are not very common, but I did find one for you that maybe you would like to use. It seemed to have a lot of similar information that you had in the article, so maybe you would like to check it out? Go to pubmed.com and type in Nemaline myopathy. Then click review on the side, and then click 5 years on the left side as well. The one that I found to be the best and most consistent with the information that you guys have is the one entitled, "Congenital myopathy with cap-like structures and nemaline rods: case report and literature review". Click on the full text review, and I think you might find this helpful, for it is a secondary source. Again, just make sure you cite it correctly at the bottom. You might want to check some other of these review sources on pubmed for they may be able to help as well.

Overall the article is well written and has a lot of information. The only major problems I saw were with citing and sources issues. It can be difficult for rare diseases, but I hope my suggestion helps!

Jmankow (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the review and thank you for the source suggestion. We worked the source into our article. We fixed all of our citations by using the in cite tool like you suggested. It was important for us to make sure our article was readable and not just scientific facts so we tried to use a variety of sources. While we agree that secondary sources were preferred and we did our best to use the ones that had useful information to us and so we also felt the need to use tertiary sources. Again, thank you for all of your suggestions.MecciaC0410 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall very good article, very in depth, clear, and informative. The organization of the sections could possibly be reorganized in a more "chronological" fashion, such as causes to symptoms to diagnosis and so forth. But overall great article.

Andrewh998 (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the review. We have been looking at the order of the sections and arranged them differently. MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Causes Good content found in this section, but it seems to be scrambled. Start with it being an inherited mutated gene that causes two types of mutations. Then explain each mutation separately. Give examples of a normal functioning sarcomere and what the mutated one looks like and how its structure affects its function. Provide pictures if possible.

2.Mechanism Good content, but needs to be more direct. The audience is looking for answers, so there is no need to paraphrase from other sections. What is the normal function of a sarcomere? how is this mutation affecting its function? Provide pictures if possible. There was a mentioned mutation in NEB and ACTA1, but suddenly there was a mentioned TPM3, so make sure information stays consistent.

3. Physical Characteristics and Effects Good content. Give each age group a separate paragraph if you want to get more detail and provide pictures.

4.Diagnosis This section is golden. I like the bullet points, and the description of each technique!

5.Signs and Symptoms If each mutation causes different signs and symptoms, provide a separate paragraph for each of these. Also, elaborate when it is mentioned that , "Osteoporosis is also common in NM". If it is how so? I like the Respiratory and communications sections.

6.Treatment Provide a gradient from least severe to severe on the types of treatments that can be provided for each.

7.Prevention I do not think this section is necessary, but it is up to your group.

8.Outcome Good description. Nemaline Community Does incest cause this? This is a good description, though. 10.History and Early Identification Good description add a link to Shy and his accomplishments if there is a wiki page for them or an external webpage.

11.Current research If you can, add the companies or research links that are working on this.

12.External Links I checked WikiGenes, and it is a secondary resource.Good job.

Overall, this is a great start for your project. There are just a few technical things that can improve. --BCBF13 (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)BCBF13

Response

Thanks for the review. We are worked on the history section and tried to link things little more. We did take your feedback on the prevention section. After reading it we through it was receptive. With treatment we thought it was hard to do what you said in providing a gradient. Treatments are different for everyone and so we didn't want to provide a gradient. For the causes section we did add a picture. Thanks for all of your work on the review. MecciaC0410 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)