Talk:Neuroacanthocytosis

Untitled

Some text in this article was originally taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/neuroacanthocytosis/neuroacanthocytosis.htm (public domain)

Naming

In several sources "neuroacanthocytosis" is listed as a group term, not a single illness. For example, at eMedicine. At the same time, OMIM link for some reason points to choreoacanthocytosis. I'm baffled a little.. Some specialist attention is needed, IMHO. --CopperKettle 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What I came across when I was researching is that Neuroacanthocytosis is a general term and is comprised of those four disease and is sometimes referred to as choreoacanthocytosis or levine-critchley syndrome. I will look into it some more and see if anyone else can help me out! Thanks for your feedback. Saralo16 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential sources

Journal papers

• Stevenson VL, Hardie RJ. Acanthocytosis and neurological disorders. J. Neurol.. 2001;248(2):87–94. PMID 11284140.
• Walker RH, Danek A, Dobson-Stone C, et al.. Developments in neuroacanthocytosis: expanding the spectrum of choreatic syndromes. Mov. Disord.. 2006;21(11):1794–805. doi:10.1002/mds.21108. PMID 16958034.
• Danek A, Walker RH. Neuroacanthocytosis. Curr. Opin. Neurol.. 2005;18(4):386–92. PMID 16003113.
• Danek A, Jung HH, Melone MA, Rampoldi L, Broccoli V, Walker RH. Neuroacanthocytosis: new developments in a neglected group of dementing disorders. J. Neurol. Sci.. 2005;229-230:171–86. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2004.11.024. PMID 15760637.
• Critchley EM, Clark DB, Wikler A. Acanthocytosis and neurological disorder without betalipoproteinemia. Arch. Neurol.. 1968;18(2):134–40. PMID 5636069.
• Rampoldi L, Danek A, Monaco AP. Clinical features and molecular bases of neuroacanthocytosis. J. Mol. Med.. 2002;80(8):475–91. doi:10.1007/s00109-002-0349-z. PMID 12185448.

Colin°^Talk 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Books

• Adrian Danek. Neuroacanthocytosis Syndromes. Berlin: Springer; 2004. ISBN 1-4020-2897-0.

Adrian Danek seems to be the expert here. This book would appear to be a must read for this topic. His homepage makes some papers available. Colin°^Talk 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is Tyler from Class I just wanted to say that the article was extremely well written. You are obviously know your stuff. The article was hard to read at times simply because I knew nothing about the disease coming in, but it did give me a very good idea about what it was like and how it was passed on. Some of the words you used that were linked could have been explained a little bit more, especially the ones like "Botulinium toxin injection" because there is no article to actually link to find out what they are. I think it would be easy to go in and add half sentences to these which would say something like: ",which are injections that help to temporarily paralyze the nerves in the body." (I am totally guessing on the meaning there based on the word Botox :] ) Anyways the article was very informative and well sourced. Your pictures helped the article and the data and percentages are an easy way to learn about the topic. One thing I was unsure about was that you said that the life expectancy was 5-10 years and then you said it was 10-20. I know these were in two different sections, but I couldn't tell the difference between the claim. I think this article will go far and people wondering about this disease will be happy to find the article on Wikipedia. Good Job. Trod17 (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This is Kaitlin from class. (I said I'd review your aricle) I think that it is very well written, and very factual and to the point. It almost needs more sentences that aren't just facts to make it easier to read. It would add to the flow and sentence variation would defintely help! I also think that instead of doing a separate section for onset, management, and prognosis for each subset of the disease, it would be better to make them a single paragraph in cases where you don't have a lot of information on each category. Overall, I think you article is really good, and I can tell you have spent a lot of time on it! hersh016 (hersh016) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Hi, this is Jake from class, sorry it took me so long to review your article, I've been very busy lately. Your article looks VERY good though, it really seems that you know what your talking about. I only have two suggestions to improve the article and the first would be to add an infobox. My article for Roberts Syndrome has one so you can look at that if you need help with that. Second, I would suggest defining more of the complicated terms better, I know what you are talking about but the average person looking at the article for information may have no clue what things such as spiculated shape mean. I did see that you tried to define some of the more complicated terms, which is good but it can be difficult to determine what people do and don't know. Having said that, the article is great!!! MooreSvn (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Your reviewer Colin had some interesting sources to use, and I suggest you follow up on the one that is web-based (Danek). (as I suggested before) Otherwise, the article is moving forward well. Be careful with your spelling. Be sure to link to the actual articles, and pipe the word usage you want to use. This [[Napoleon I|Nappy]] gives you Nappy. Otherwise you end up with a lot of redlinks (no article) that actually are there. You might put the two autosomal recessive diseases together, perhaps even under the same heading, or not. But at least sequentially. They have some similarities of transmission. I've moved a few things around, trying to set up the group of diseases up front. Your headers need to follow the wikipedia style: first word is capitalized, subsequent words are not unless they are proper nouns. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neuroacanthocytosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Comments soon

• Images

• File:US-NIH-NINDS-Logo.svg although federal works are PD, I'm not sure if this applies to logos. Can you clarify please? Actually, I'm not sure why NINDS is singled out to have its logo with a spammy caption, best to remove I think
• File:Autosomal recessive inheritance.gif claimed as PD, but Genzyme page says © 2003-2010 Genzyme Corporation. All rights reserved
• File:XlinkRecessive.jpg linked source doesn't show this image, can you fix the link please

• Jimfbleak--this editor didn't load the image, and was operating on the information given on the commons page.

• I don't like the left-aligned images that cut across section subheadings, better to right-align

• the section headings are broken by the image. He thinks this is unappealing. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a {{Personality}} tag to the image showing an identifiable face, and I have tagged another image for the border to be removed. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the image of person with medication induced dystonia: more details needed. The image needs explaining - he has an IVI and appears to be in a hospital bed with the right (his right) cot side up. What does the image demonstrate? What drug(s) caused this? Is this temporary, permanent, experimentally induced, or a side effect. Is there any confusion with dyskinesia? Where was this image taken? Is the subject of the image a patient? I note that the image description on commons appropriately says that the person has given permission for the image to be shown; nevertheless, I anticipate that permission needed to divulge medical details is entirely different to permission for showing an image. I expect that a separate permission would be needed to reveal his medical details here, so please check your permissions before adding any clinical details. However, going on the sparse information available at this juncture, I think that the image should not appear on the page, since it probably partly illustrates a drug-induced movement disorder and not neuroacanthocytosis. Snowman (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is most probably a drug induced disorder. The person gave written content for the us of their image on Wikipedia in full understanding of what that entailed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• References

• could journal titles be written in full please. Also note that page ranges should be given with ndashes (–) not hyphens

• he means here that you need to fix the references so that the journal titles are written out, not abbreviated. Page ranges should be done with the wiki dash , this way: (–), not with a simple typed dash. Your references are not consistently cited...Book names and journal names should be italicized. I'm not sure why there are so many double colons in the citation text, and I thought you had fixed this. I fixed one of each, but then you needed to do the rest. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• The style of referencing seems odd (I compared it with the Down syndrome FA to check that it wasn't a project thing). Books italicised, but not journals (although not consistent, some are italicised), web/print in most cites, lots of double colons. Is there a precedent for this style?

• Content

• Anticipation and XK are dabs, Chorea and Pedigrees are redirect pages to dabs. No dead links.

• dabs=disambiguation pages. Pages that list a lot of possible articles for the direction you want your reader to take, but you need to select the proper article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Table has text right up to the box, is it possible to put some white space in, like the cladogram here

• I don't know how to fix this either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lots of wrong/inconsistent caps, I've fixed some, but there are several others. Parkingsonism surely should be capped?
• within-article links like those in para 1 aren't good. Change them to proper wikilinks to the articles, and write short stubs based on what you have here for any red links.

• yes, I agree with this.

• acanthocytes is off-putting in the opening line, how about a parenthetical gloss to save readers having to follow the redirect here, rather than in para 2?

• this means an explanation in parenthesis.

• not sure that favor is a good word for nasty diseases
• Overlinking, please check eg acanthacytes is linked at least three time including twice in the lead

• usually, only only one link per article, unless there is a specific reason to link more than once. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Research" is very flimsy, mentioning just one institution, presumably chosen because it's American. See this for other involved bodies

• Your research section needs expansion of other institutions that are involved in studying these diseases. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Chorea Acanthocytosis" capped in subheading, not in next line. Why is Chorea capped throughout? It doesn't look like a proper noun

• consistency of capitalization.

• Check prose, too many howevers, and plus used instead of and or also

• Yes, this is an issue, although not as much as it used to be. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why not combine "onset" and "incidence" subsections to avoid having such tiny subsections?
• Eye of the tiger’s sign seen on an MRI caused by excess iron deposition in the globus pallidus. Viewed on an MRI, this region appears like a tiger's eye, indicating excess iron and suggesting PKAN. (spherical section of the brain) repetitive
• Family history of McLeod syndrome and family history both listed as diagnostic for McLeod's. How do these differ

More comments on text to follow, but I think the article basically needs a good copy-edit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

translations needed

Jimfbleak, I've read some of your comments on this article. This is the student's first wikipedia article, and some of your wiki-cabulary is beyond her ken. I'll help with the copy edit, but could you help us clean up the images and white space(I don't know how to do that either). Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Saralo16, I added the stub for Bassen Kornzweig's disease, but you'll need to add a stub for the Huntington's Disease-like etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

AuntieRuth, thanks for your comments, help and translation, I'll be gentle. I don't know how to fix the whitespace either, and I won't make it a deal-breaker, but it would be good if it could be fixed - I'll ask around. I'll let the alleged US government image go for now, although it would be good to have a link to the actual source image, but I can't see how the Genzyme one can possibly be PD as it's claimed to be, so I think that must go. The NINDS logo is, I think unnecessary and parochial whatever its status, so no loss if that goes either. There's no rush with this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

good thinking with the table, I've copy-edited the lead to reduce verbiage. I've also fixed the subheadings again, since incorrect capitalisation (Incidence) had crept back, also replaced & with "and" - former too informal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I see that each of the diseases has its own wikipage. I think that there should be a better balance with the information in this article and the individual disease pages. Perhaps this page should be more of an overview to avoid a lot of repetition. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Auntieruth and Jimfbleak, thank you for all of your comments and help! Snowman, I agree with you but this is for a class project so after the grading is done I will move most of the information on the other diseases into their own pages. Thanks. Saralo16 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the current data organisation (with this page lumping details of the separate diseases) across the relevant wiki articles is inconsistent with this page achieving a GA. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what is meant by "class project" and "after the grading is done"? Snowman (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is going to be graded by my professor and it has a length requirement so when I started working on it months ago and included these sections, I did not realize it was going to be a problem. This is my first wikipedia article so I am learning what and what not to do. The article will most likely be graded by the end of this week, so I will be able to move the information to their own stubs sometime after that. Saralo16 (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding data organisation options: the topic could be presented in topic book or more than one article could be presented (separately or assembled). Snowman (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would mention the exact incidence of the diseases rather than saying rare and very rare and so on. The genetics section does not say anything about spontaneous genetic abnormalities, which could contribute a sizeable proportion of affected people for very rare genetic diseases. You might comment on consanguinity. I think that the enzymes could be more directly linked to the illnesses in the introduction. I think that one or two more grand tables to summaries sourced information would be useful. Does your professor know that you are doing your project this way? I guess that he would want to assess your contribution to this collaboration. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The incidence of the disease is in the onset and incidence sections ... should I put that in the lead paragraph as well? The spontaneous genetic abnormalities are not known since they are so rare. I put what genes they are and what proteins they affect but I'm not sure what else you think I should add. And yes, my professor has seen my article and knows how it is set up. About the dystonia photo, I didn't take it I got if off of wikimedia commons because I have been struggling finding photos to add to my article. I thought that even though it is medically induced, it would give the reader an idea of what dystonia looks like in patients. Do you have any suggestions for other photos I could add? Thanks for all your help! Saralo16 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• The image is on the dystonia page, so there is no need to show the image here. I think that the image shows a different problem to the topic of this page, so I think that the image should be removed from this page. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Spontaneous abnormalities are rare, so spontaneous abnormalities can induce a sizeable proportion of the genetic defects that cause rare diseases. The "X-linked recessive" disease mentioned might be expected to have % of spontaneous abnormalities - one abnormal gene is expressed in males. Spontaneous abnormalities are not mentioned in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

references

The cite template is used for some but not all references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that matters unless there is a mixture of different citation templates used. I didn't notice any citation or Harvard templates. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sasato, I notice that there have been no replies to my comments above, dated 26 April so far Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, thank you so much for your help! I agree with your comments and suggestions and think I have fixed most of the things you asked in your review. Any other suggestions of things you think I should change or take care of? Thanks Saralo16 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed also that most of the medical articles have one of these boxes with List of ICD-10 codes, so perhaps you could find the proper one, or have one of your commentators ask for help? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, if this needs to be broken into smaller articles, or whatever, per a comment above, that's okay. I can assess the work that way as well, Sasato.

I added some {{cite web}} etc. examples so the editor could see two ways to do it. We've not mixed styles, just methods to achieve the same end. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help me with one of the boxes Auntieruth mentions? I have looked through them and cannot seem to find one that fits my article and I have no idea how to make one, etc. Thanks Saralo16 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Major cleanup needed

This article presents detailed information on several conditions that can cause neuroacanthocytosis. The information is excessive here, and better left to the individual main articles which are more likely to be curated and updated. I suggest removing all the detailed individual disease sections and replacing them with very brief summaries. I will do this soon unless there are objections. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 09:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No objections here. We're an encyclopedia. For what it's worth, do you think this was likely the result of a wp:classroom assignment? Many assignments I am aware of require students to add certain quantities of text (even if the article doesn't most need that and would be most be improved by trimming and careful editing). I've even seen students duplicate existing articles, under a separate title. I've seen many examples of students adding off-topic blabbering text to reach said arbitrary directives from their instructors. Ping to User:Ian (Wiki Ed) because I am curious if Wiki Ed makes a practice of cleaning up student-related messes. Also, is Wiki Ed discouraging the kinds of classroom assignments that simply ask for students to expand articles? What kinds of assignments does Wiki Ed tend tend to promote these days (through default text, perhaps)? (Feel free to answer some of that at my talk page, if you don't mind.) Much appreciated. I used to volunteer as an ambassador and have in the past worked with instructors on designing assignments. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Done! Feedback appreciated, many thanks Dubbin^{u | t | c} 11:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)