This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HAL333 (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 23 December 2024 (GA nom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:01, 23 December 2024 by HAL333 (talk | contribs) (GA nom)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. |
|
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
Missing source
@HAL333, in this edit you added an sfn to Bhattacharyya (2017), but didn't add the long-form source. Could you add it to the bibliography please? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wham2001, oops. Thanks for catching that. I've just fixed it. Cheers. ~ HAL333 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Sounds good, I'll integrate the Prevention section and take a look at those sources tomorrow. Cheers, ~ HAL333 04:34, 16 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)
- 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)
- 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