Talk:Vertiginous epilepsy

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. The revised article will be posted by March 24, 2014. MissKell (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing this page as part of Marquette Neurobiology assignment. MUhelb (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review: Overall, I think your article explains vertiginous epilepsy very well. The article describes the main categories that I would be interested in if I wanted to learn more about this. I do have a few recommendations. I would recommend starting your article with things that vertiginous epilepsy does do, instead of what it does not do. Also, the second paragraph in the mechanism section seems to apply more to the history section of your article. In the causes section of the article, you explain that traumatic head injuries could be a cause of the seizures. I think that is very interesting. Is there any information that could explain how this occurs physiologically? If possible, I think expanding on the causes section would be very interesting and helpful for readers. I like that you differentiated between vertigo and dizziness. I feel like that clears up some common misconceptions that most people may have. I also really like the different pictures you used, especially the video of the Optokinetic Nystagmus. The video helps make the symptoms more realistic to people who are used to reading text only. Overall, I really like the layout and content of your article, it flows really well. Great work! KPhillips13 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marquette Neurobiology Reviewer: As vertiginous epilepsy is a relatively rare type of epilepsy there are few secondary sources covering it. Therefore our article contains several non-secondary sources. Thank you for your consideration during your review. MUhelb (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, this is great! The grammar may need some work, but the actual content of the article is superb. There were many different facets and provided a very good overview of vertiginous epilepsy. I'm with the previous reviewer, I can't believe there wasn't a page for this already. Great job guys. JamesBond34 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review: Very very well written! Such an interesting topic- you guys got lucky! I really like the explanation of the difference between dizziness and vertigo- it seemed very relevant. The diagnosis paragraph was also very well written. The images fit the article very nicely. References look good. The only thing Id recommend is proof reading again, some senteces are run-on or improper and put a ":" before you list things (ex. Some such symptoms that may accompany vertiginous epilepsy include:.)Sheldon92 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #1

I think this page is very well put together and well organized. I'm actually surprised there wasn't a page prior to this on this subject. I really like the way everything was laid out and the organization of the topic headings. I also really liked the image you have of the optokinetic hystagmus and how its a moving image- very cool. Great job! 8466jacoba (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary review

Overall, i think the article is very well-written. The information is explained in relatively simple terms that anyone with no background on this topic can read through and get a good understanding of it. Also, I appreciate the research section as it gives information on how relevant this topic is. Finally, I appreciate that you guys came up with a couple of images to provide visual help. All in all, I think this article is very good. Good job.

Thank you,

Ngakona (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

You guys definitely rocked it. The topic, though complex and a lot of info, was very well explained, cited, and laid out. Nice job! I think that there is a section on mechanism ( the 2nd paragraph) that begins talking about some research's experiment/ discovery that should be moved to the "history" section to keep things consistent- it seemed more of a background topic/paragraph than a mechanism paragraph. Other than that however things look really well done! I loved the image- it was easy to see and understand. The moving visual was cool- maybe a bit distracting for people trying to read what was written next to it but just a minor thing to think about.

Mady Martin Mady mads (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

I will go through the article section by section.

Intro section: I would describe vertiginous epilepsy a little more here. The first sentence should say exactly what it is. You might want to word it differently than saying it is infrequently the first symptom of a seizure.

Signs and symptoms: This section was very well done. I liked that you included a distinction between dizziness and vertigo. There isn't much to change in this section other than punctuation ( [:] to start off a list) and maybe some more links to other pages (e.g. ictal, limbic).

History and Epidemiology: This is a good section as well, but there are a few spelling errors. There is not a lot of epidemiology in this section, but that is probably due to the lack of research on this subject.

Causes: Again, there does not appear to be a lot of information about this subject, but maybe try to go into a little more detail on the possible genetic causes. The other causes (head trauma, etc.) are generally self-explanatory, but the genetic causes could be further explained (assuming they are understood by the researchers).

Mechanism: The first paragraph is a good description of the mechanism, but it also goes into the causes a little bit. I would suggest possibly combining the first paragraph with the causes section into a Causes and Mechanism section. The second paragraph, as another review noted, seems like it belongs in the history section. It seems out of place where it is. Also, you should either explain what caloric testing is or link to a page that does (if it exists).

Diagnosis: This is probably the best section in the article. You go into a lot of detail while still remaining understandable to someone without a scientific background. The only changes I would recommend in this paragraph are to begin the list with a colon and change the PET Scan link. Be consistent with how you describe the tests (something like: Positron emission tomography (PET)). You can link to a page without using the actual title page in the text. Otherwise this section made good use of linking to other pages.

Prevention/Management: Because there is so little information out there, it is understandable that these sections are short. I would suggest combining these sections together as they are related. Also, the first sentence in the prevention section is worded strangely (prevent oneself should maybe be just prevent).

Research: This section was good, but there are several grammar mistakes (e.g. starting the second sentence with But,...). If possible, link to the study that you are describing (Kaga et al).

I also read the R. Ottman article that you cited (Autosomal Dominant Partial Epilepsy with Auditory Features, Ottman). It was a secondary source and I think you made good use of describing the suspected genetic nature of vertiginous epilepsy. I do think, however, that you could have gone into more detail, as there is a lot in the article.

Overall: This article was well done. Read through it again and fix the few spelling and grammar mistakes for sure and make the other changes I suggested if you think they would improve the article. One more change I would suggest is to provide URLs for your sources listed in the references section if they are online sources. Also, peer-reviewed journal articles will often have a DOI number attached to them that is used to identify the article. You can usually put this into the citation section and it will automatically fill out the details and create a link to the article.

Good Job! LJ112358 (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for all of the great advice! We've gone through and tried to correct all of the grammar and structural errors.

We tried to incorporate more into the intro section, giving a more general overview of what the disease it.

Signs and symptoms: we corrected the grammar and added some more links as recommended.

History and epidemiology: we corrected grammar errors and also added the paragraph from mechanism section as you recommended.

Causes and mechanism: we appreciate your comments about wanting more information on the genetic screening but as of right now there is not a lot of information supported through extensive testing. Because of this, we aren't putting up more info on the genetic component. We don't want to be using information that isn't scientifically supported. We also liked your suggestion of combining the causes and mechanism sections so we followed through with that as well.

Diagnosis: we corrected the grammar

Prevention and management: we combined these sections as well like you recommended because they were so short and also flow well together. we also corrected the grammar

Research: we corrected the grammar and reworked the structure trying to make it flow better and more easy to read.

Ehart25 (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review 2

So I couldn't have said it better than LJ112358 did in his primary review of your article. As far as flow and structure of the article it is in tip top shape. There are some minor grammar errors that could be changed in this article and I'm sure you will sort through those before it is due. The article has very good structure for a non-science background person and I believe that they would be able to clearly understand what you are saying in your article.

I read the article by Gowers and I think that you guys did a really good job of picking out the information from this article that would be most useful and understandable for the wiki page. It also appears to be one of your few secondary articles which is super awesome!

As far as I can tell the article looks great and touching on the points of the primary reviewers and secondary reviewers and you'll have yourselves a very great article to be turned in at the end of the semester! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammin1993 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To start, for the reviewing process we re-read the entire article making grammatical and clarity/organization alterations just in a general update. I'm glad you found the article appropriate for non-science readers as that was taken into consideration for the purpose. As you referred to another primary reviewer's opinions, please attend any specifics changes that we considered. Thanks for pointing out those possible changes and the overall input. MissKell (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary review

This article was very well written and the information was presented in a very easy-to-read fashion, following the summary style of Wikipedia. The different sections of the article remained focused on the subtopic and the article as a whole is organized and coherent. The layout of the article followed the Wikipedia format and the references were correctly cited. Throughout the article, there were some grammatical errors, such as run-on sentences, that could be corrected to make an overall improvement. The images in the article helped support the content in addition to the helpful captions that were added. Great job and a really interesting read! --Mchan19 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review 1

First, I have to commend you all on the organization of this article. I particularly liked that it was written in a concise, straight to the point, manner. It was easy to read and, in addition, provided quite a bit of relevant and necessary information that should be there, so that was good! The images included supported the content of the article and helped visually when relating what was said to be actually occurring in Vertiginous Epilepsy. There were just a few minor grammatical errors that I noticed, along with a few word and phrase choices that could be altered to improve this article. Other than those changes, there aren't any major fixes that I saw fit. Overall it looks to be very well-done. HawksHockey21 (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review 3

Overall, this article is very concise and informative. I'll go through section by section to give more specific thoughts

1)Introduction:

This section seems a little underdeveloped. For anyone looking for a a quick but complete summary of Vertiginous epilepsy, this does not provide enough information to paint a complete picture. The first sentence should focus more on describing what this condition is, and the two last sentences that describe the symptoms should be expanded.

2)Symptoms:

This section is very complete and has no organization issues.

3)History and Epidemiology:

This section gives a seemingly complete history on this topic, but the timeline here seems to jump from event to event without much comment on significance or relation between the events. It seems like too much is crammed into a single paragraph. The last sentence also seems slightly out of place. A transition or separate section would work well here.

4)Causes:

It's clear that there isn't much information out there on causes of v. p., but the information provided seems complete regardless. I would be careful, however, mentioning poorly supported hypotheses here.

5)Mechanism:

Everything seems good here.

6)Diagnosis:

A lot of good information here on diagnosis techniques for a condition which is hard to diagnose due to its effect on memory. It is very informative with plenty of links to related techniques.

Sources are all secondary, even if not easily accessible. I'm sure I'm being overly careful being suspicious of WebMD as a source, but that's the only one that caught my eye as questionable

Apart from a few grammatical errors and the points I mentioned, this is a very good article. Great job!!! AleksNemo (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To start, for the reviewing process we re-read the entire article making grammatical and clarity/organization alterations just in a general update. For the introduction, we did review and agree with your statement. We added a more brief and concise description for the disease on a broader stage. The history and epidemiology section was also changed so the events were more chronological along with trying to incorporate the sentence that may have been out of place. We did want to keep the information in the same section though for organization and relativity. Thanks for pointing out those possible changes and overall review. Thank You MissKell (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)