Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:49, 28 December 2024

Parkinson's disease is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by ~ HAL333 at 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: Progressive neurodegenerative disease

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parkinson's disease article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Parkinson's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 28, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 17, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed January 15, 2011 Good article nominee Listed March 5, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted October 17, 2020 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance). Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Parkinson's disease is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Parkinson's disease. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Other talk page banners

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease (diff) Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Parkinson's disease clinical research (diff) Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Treatments of Parkinson's Disease Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Braak staging (diff) Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → Lee Silverman voice treatment (diff) Copied Parkinson's disease (history) → History of Parkinson's disease (diff) Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Fymat, Alain L: International Institute of Medicine and Science (December 23, 2017), Parkinson's Disease and other Movement Disorders: A Review, Scientia Ricerca Additional comments See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat

Wiki Education assignment: Biology I from cells to organisms

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TTK043 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TTK043 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the four lead images be replaced?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the four images currently used in the infobox be replaced with this one of a Lewy body below? ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Past Discussions

2023, 2022, 2013, 3-25-2011, 3-8-2011, 2008, 2006 ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support new image The current four images are low-quality, inconsistent, and unnecessarily clutter the infobox. More importantly, they fail to represent Parkinson's disease accurately, given its highly variable symptoms, which range from low blood pressure to cognitive decline. It's not even very clear what symptoms the current lead images are trying to illustrate, like the circled foot. These images violate Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section as they are not genuinely representative. In contrast, a Lewy body—widely recognized as the hallmark biological feature of Parkinson's disease—provides a more accurate and universal depiction. Trying to accurately depict patients afflicted with a disease in the lead image is almost impossible and is not the standard on Misplaced Pages: see Cancer, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, or other neurodegenerative diseases like Huntington's disease, the FA Dementia with Lewy bodies, Multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, ALS, or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  If anyone needs a direct comparison, these are the lead images on related articles:

• Multiple sclerosis
• Dementia with Lewy bodies
• Huntington's disease
• Multiple system atrophy
• Vascular dementia
• Leigh syndrome

• No (Summoned by bot) I don't find microscopic images of damaged tissue very informative to understanding the effect of a disease. The current image has been in the article for about one year, and this simpler image of the "Gowers' illustration" was in the article as early as 6-1-2019. In 2011, it was even a featured article with the "Gowers' illustration". Based on the discussions I included above, the Gowler's illustration seems historically significant--so I prefer seeing it included high up in the article as it is now. There seems to be a long-running consensus to keep an image such as the current one. About a year ago this image was floated and apparently rejected, which might be an acceptable alternative to the current one. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. I don't think the proposed picture of a Lewy body helps the reader to understand anything at all about Parkinson's. --Alarics (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• No: per above. --_ZZ'S 16:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. The proposed Lewy body image assumes the general user would understand or recognize the cellular effect, which is unlikely; see WP:WFTWA and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6,7. The disease symptoms image is a good choice for general users to visually grasp the article. Zefr (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Prevention section

The subhead is misnamed - there is no 'prevention', only potential reduction of risk. All the sources used in this section are research-in-progress. The section should be retitled 'Research on risk reduction' and moved to below the 'Prognosis' section. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The "Prevention" subsection has been around for quite some time, and is the standard on related articles like Alzheimer's disease, and is suggested per WP:MEDMOS. I think that this objection might be rooted in a misunderstanding of the meaning of "prevention" in a medical context. It quite literally means "potential reduction of risk" (per the NIH: "Prevention = In medicine, action taken to decrease the chance of getting a disease or condition"). Also, "Research on risk reduction" is a somewhat ungainly title, and don't essentially all of these subsections result from research? Should they all be titled "Research on X"? It seems redundant. ~ HAL333 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The word prevention may mislead general non-science users to conclude there are certain lifestyle practices for avoiding PD, WP:WFTWA. Moving this section into the 'Clinical research' topics seems the best place for it, but it should be significantly trimmed.

The phrases "may have a protective effect", "hypothesized to be neuroprotective" or "proposed to be neuroprotective" are non-neutral (as they may not), are based on primary research, and are MOS:WEASEL. That is why I removed this. Zefr (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some of that material was cited to primary research papers and you rightly removed them. However, the only sources I've used in that subsection are secondary review articles. Also, the subsection immediately and explicitly states "no disease-modifying therapies exist that reverse or slow neurodegeneration" at the very beginning, so I don't think anyone is being misled.

Regardless, although I see "Prevention" as a fine subtitle, do you think maybe retitling it as "Neuroprotection" or "Potential neuroprotection" would be a sufficient compromise? I also would not be opposed to splitting "Risk factors" from the "Causes" sections and then having a "Risk factors" section (as we used to) with "Positive risk factors" and "Negative risk factors" subtitles. ~ HAL333 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Better to use the positive and negative risk factors for subheads. Also, this source is not MEDLINE-indexed, so its content should be removed as unreliable. The Frontiers journals trigger a dubious source alert - would be good to find better reviews or remove them. Zefr (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll integrate the Prevention section and take a look at those sources tomorrow. Cheers, ~ HAL333 04:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really a concept of "positive risk factor" or "negative risk factor" so please don't create these as separate headers. You could talk about "protective risk factors" which is sometimes done. But probably best to just have a "risk factor" section. Smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer. Quit and it is protective. Start and it is the opposite. Same for most other risk factors - depends on whether the dose is increasing or decreasing. Jaredroach (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Frontiers review articles should be OK. See WP:MEDRS. But if there is a higher profile or more recent reference for the same thing, may be better to replace it. If it is an extreme or implausible claim, then be careful of any single source. Jaredroach (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The concept of "prevention" includes interventions that are not 100% guaranteed to stop a disease. So a section on lifestyle interventions (such as exercise) that prevent (or stave off) PD is reasonable. All of medicine is in a process of continuous research, so it may not be necessary to overly emphasize that interventions (such as exercise) that are backed by a lot of research belong in a separate "researchy stuff" section. This article is in the scope of WP:MED, so it makes sense to follow WikiProject Medicine guidelines. I am not quite sure what a "non-science" user is, but if there is some writing that is hard to understand, we can work on making it more understandable, including links to epistemological concepts like risk factor (which needs some work) and causality. Jaredroach (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Broken references

@HAL333 I've fixed a bunch of the shortened footnotes – you might like to double-check the edits in this combined diff, but there were a handful I couldn't work out (ref numbers are in this version of the article):

• #35 Weintraub & Mamikonyan 2019, p. 661 – I found this source but the page numbers don't match. Perhaps it's a typo for the paper cited in the previous reference?
• #42 Palma & Kaufmann 2020, pp. 1465–1466 – I corrected the other Palma & Kaufmann refs to 2018, but here the page numbers don't match
• #65 Tanner & Ostrem 2024 – no idea about this one
• #230 Corcoran, Muiño & Kluger 2021, p. 1 – ditto.

You might like to consider installing this script, which highlights problems with {{sfn}}s for you in lurid pink – I find it invaluable. Thanks for your work on the article, and thanks in advance for fixing the references above. Good luck at GAN! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Wham2001! I'll start tackling these. ~ HAL333 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parkinson's disease/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HAL333 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is a huge topic so it may take me longer than usual to review, I'll fill out the table as I go and make comments below so it is easier for you to respond. At first glance, there is a few SFN errors that should be fixed. Additionally per WP:MEDDATE we should be using articles published within the last 5 years wherever possible. Because Parkinsons is such a hot topic I would imagine there is enough research to be able to do this. If you plan on taking this to FAC then I'd try to use the 5 year rule, but for the sake of GAN I try to stick to 10 years. Meaning every source published before 2015 (excluding NICE reviews, Cocheran reviews, and history section) should be replaced with more recent sources. IntentionallyDense 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate you tackling what will likely be a lengthy review. The ultimate goal is to bring this up to Featured status, so if you're more picky than is necessarily needed for the GAN process, that's quite fine for me. And I am perfectly happy if you take your time: I didn't expect this review to be initiated so quickly (I guess I've just been unlucky in the past) and I have an overseas mountaineering trip from December 31 through January 14. I'll try to make the occasional prose adjustment, but I'll only have my phone and an unreliable connection, so reference consultation will likely be limited. I'll be able to address all your comments within a few days of my return. ~ HAL333 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Knowing that you plan to take this to the FA level I'll leave some additional comments that will hopefully get you moving in the right direction. These will be completely optional but I will include them to hopefully give you a headstart. IntentionallyDense 04:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some minor issues are listed below. IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Images are all captioned appropriately. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until HAL333 can address the issues I have found thusfar. IntentionallyDense 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Images

• For the image under the motor section of symptoms "diminutive handwriting" isn't defined which is an issue cause the wikilink doesn't really help. A quick explanation would be nice. IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is this just an WP:EASTEREGG issue? Let me know if my fix is sufficient. ~ HAL333 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your fix looks good. IntentionallyDense 04:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Under the autonomic section, I don't feel like your image caption of Dysphagia—an autonomic failure—and subsequent complications like aspiration pneumonia (pictured) reduce quality of life. is super helpful here. Could it be changed to something along the lines of Dysphagia can lead to aspiration pneumonia (pictured) as the QOL isn't brought up elsewhere in this section so it feels out of place. IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• The caption under the two images in the causes section may read better as The protein alpha-synuclein aggregates into Lewy bodies and neurites. Structural model of alpha-synuclein (left), photomicrograph of Lewy bodies (right). to better explain the two images. IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Under imaging the term "F-DOPA" is used but never explained. Is there a wikilink you could add or could you give a brief explanation on this? IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Under levodopa the acronym LCE is used. Could you spell this out in full? IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• The wording of the caption under the tricycle is a little odd. Could you reword it? IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Under cell based therapies the caption says "one such iSPC differentiated" but I assume you mean iPSCs. IntentionallyDense 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• All addressed. Let me know if any need further tweaking. ~ HAL333 00:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  All looks good on the image part. Let me know once you get around to the citations and I'll continue my review after that. No preassure time wise as I suspect this will be a lengthy review. IntentionallyDense 04:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• You have quite a few borderline sources included here. I'll link all of the ones I found on a quick look. If you could replace as many of these as possible that would be great. IntentionallyDense 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not all of these will need to be replaced. Try putting the issn into this website. For example, the journal "International journal of molecular sciences" (used in this pub) is indexed in a lot of databases while some of the other journals here aren't indexed in may databases. IntentionallyDense 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Optional/nitpicks

• Since you plan to take this to the FA level I thought I'd leave some recommendations that I've gotten over at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. All of these are optional and will not effect the outcome of my decision here. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• There is some major overlinking with this article. I'll see what I can do myself but in general things only really need to be linked once. See MOS:LINKONCE. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• With the amount of technical terms (especially in the causes/pathophysiology section) there may be situations where it is appropriate to add a red link in. See Misplaced Pages:Red link. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• WP:MEDDATE will be taken much more seriously at the FA level. As will borderline sources. I suggest trying to replace as many of these as possible unless you are able to give a strong argument as to why they should be included over a newer article from a more reliable publisher. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Scaling of images should be done with the |upright feature not by pixel size. See MOS:UPRIGHT. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Alt text should be added to all images. See WP:MOSALT IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Sources should be ordered alphabetically. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Anywhere where you can provide a page number you should. I see quite a bit of sfns without page numbers. IntentionallyDense 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
• B-Class medicine articles
• Top-importance medicine articles
• B-Class neurology articles
• Top-importance neurology articles
• Neurology task force articles
• B-Class psychiatry articles
• High-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Disability articles
• WikiProject Disability articles
• B-Class neuroscience articles
• High-importance neuroscience articles