Wikipedia:Peer review/Tourette syndrome/archive1

Tourette syndrome edit

Coming across this article on a whim, it looks like it has enough detail and the proper refereneces to warrant featured status. However, I can't tell if it has the requisite neutrality from simply glancing at it. Denelson 83 23:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it, at last :-) edit

I hope the peer review will attract more editors, as I've been trying to drum up more support and input for several months, and have not had other editors to work with. I finally became discouraged that I couldn't drum up anyone else to help work on the article, and gave up about a month ago. Here is some of what I can add about the status of the article:

Encephalon has done some preliminary work on a PANDAS article, as yet unpublished, and has given me helpful input, which can be found on his talk page. [1]
The references aren't in great shape yet, as some of them don't reference the original, journal-published articles, rather textbooks that reference the articles. Time needs to be spent on sourcing the original articles, rather than texts that refer to them.
Encephalon had explained to me how to use the Summary style for some of the long subsections, but I hadn't gotten around to doing that yet. [2]
And, also on my talk page, user Colonel Marksman has suggested that the article is too broad, and I was intending to work on that. [3]
There is additionally a To Do list on my user page of things I haven't yet gotten to. Sandy 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add audio/video? edit

A really useful addition would be an audio/video sample demonstrating tics. Otherwise it appears to be developing well, great work by all those involved.--nixie 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had included the following links to video clips from news reports, but they were deleted repeatedly in an exchange with an unsigned editor, that resulted in a request for mediation. I'm interested to know if others think they should be added back in ? I'm not aware of any other video clips that aren't spoofs, or any good video clips that show adults with tics (most people with tics are children). These clips are from the HBO Documentary on Tourette's, which the unsigned editor objected to, for reasons that were never made clear. CBS News report with video clips and News10 Report with video clips Petaholmes, can you help me understand the reasoning for putting the external links last? I was wondering because I had changed the font size for the references, since they are so long, so it's strange to see the external links after them. Is that customary? TIA Sandy 01:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the video link should be OK, is the anon editor still active?

In most articles I've come across external links are last, the MoS says to put them last, and it makes sense for the referneces to directly proceed the text as they were used to write the text, whereas the ex links are suggesion for finding further information.--nixie 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Nixie. ~~No, I don't think the unsigned editor is still active, but it was a changing IP address.~~ Yes, he seems to have returned. I didn't have any other editors to help reach consensus, as no other editor was involved with the page, so I didn't want to add something back in without some consensus. Sandy 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Video clips of tics

I found a better video clip. Video clip from TSA website about HBO documentary. I think the unsigned editor kept deleting my entries relating to the HBO Documentary, as he may have mistakenly believed I had a vested interest in it, in spite of my disclaimers? It's the only accurate source of video clips I'm aware of. What section do you think I should put those in? Should they just be in External Links? Or can someone teach me how to put them in a box somewhere in the article, similar to a picture? I don't know how to make a box similar to a userbox. Sandy 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the clips aren't ourrs, I would just include them in the external links section.--nixie 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Very nice article. Covers almost all aspects. However, a reference list at the bottom would be great. Extremely referenced (I mean inline citation), just adding some major reference books/articles in a seperate reference list would be nice. Though not necessary, turning all the red links to blue links would be beneficial in FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question about the lead (as I haven't read the rest of the article yet): Does the syndrome affect its sufferers by causing motor tics and a phonic tic? Or does having either one of them (an or situation) qualify as a symptome of the disease? I hope I'm being clear... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dwaipayanc ... I will work on red links, and a list of references. titoxd, yes, a TS diagnosis requires ~~phonic~~ motor and vocal tics. One or the other, and for less than a year (transient or chronic tics) is covered under Tic disorder. Is it unclear in the article? If so, I should fix that. On the other hand, these are entirely arbitrary, man-made definitions. A person with two motor tics and one phonic tic has TS, while a person with 50 motor tics and no phonic doesn't. Makes no sense, since TS, transient tics, and chronic tics are all thought to come from the same place, but that's the way the DSM defines them. Also, just to point out while we're on the topic, TS isn't a disease, and not all persons who have it are "sufferers" ... I've been removing that word as POV :-) Thanks for the interest! Sandy

Yes, it's a bit unclear for the article. I just picked those two words because they were the first two that came to my mind... ;) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip ... I've not got a lot of free time right now, so I'll work on clarifying the whole TS/Tic disorder (either/or/and) issue in a few days. Thanks ! Sandy 15:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The article seems a bit longish. Can sections like "description" be summarised, may be with a link to a daughter article discussing the description in detail? Otherwise, imo, absolute FAC material.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps Prognosis may also be summarised. Shortening drugs section by minimising side effects may be another option. Even when I am writing this, I myself am not liking what I am writing! the article is extensively comprehensive. And I am suggesting the decrease in size just for the sake of decreasing. If you think such edits will reduce the quality of the article, please refrain from reducing the size. A few images might make the article more suitable for reading by a layman. However, it would be difficult to portray the tics by still images!! How about adding a AD pedigree showing the likelihood of inheritance? (again, this is debated!)--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Dwaipayanc. Others (notably, Encephalon -- see my comments at the top of this article) have suggested shortening the article, using the Summary style, and I have wanted to do that. One other editor, however, resists my efforts to shorten the article. Following mediation, I have refrained from shortening it further, as I didn't have enough editors involved to develop a genuine consensus on some of the "fluff" that could be deleted. I'd like to take a red pen to the article, but that tends towards a revert war each time I try. I'm not aware of any useful images that can be used: don't know what to do about that. Likelihood of inheritance is difficult to accurately portray, as TS is a condition of variable penetrance (you can inherit the genes and not display the condition), and the exact genetic mode of inheritance is not clear. Please keep the good comments coming: if the article is to be shortened, I will need the support of other editors, as my attempts at deleting some of the "fluff" have been unsuccessful thus far. Sandy 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd, back to your question about motor and phonic tics required for a diagnosis: the lead says, "Tourette syndrome ... is ... characterized by the presence of multiple motor tics and at least one phonic tic ... " I'm not sure how to make it more clear ? Is it allright to bold the and ? Or is it unclear for another reason? TIA Sandy 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Style edit

I've used the summary style to create main articles for the two sections I thought most needed to be pared down. Comments ?? Sandy 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you have quite ruthlessly sacked many portions!! Anyway, the result is cool. The article is not aversive now. Yes I use the word aversive, because in the previous giant form, one could not help leave reading in the mid-way.

Now, I have changed the name of the section "References" to "Notes", as is the usual norm nowadays. And also decreased the font size. One thing you have to do is add a seperate "Reference" section. List some of the books/journal articles you have repeatedly used to create the article in this "Reference" section. For example, those resources for which there are many superscripts (a,b,c...) can be listed in "reference" section. This will help an user to find out major resources. You can see the article Bangladesh where they have extensively used this style. This style is slowly catching up. In fact, in my experience, in an FAC, there was an opposition why there was no reference. While that particular article had a lot of inline citations it lacked a sepearate Reference section. We had to create a seperate Reference section and listed major resources there.

I know the process is not easy for an article like this where multiple resources have been used. But at least give a try. I will add more if I find out anything. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More: What about adding MedlinePlus, eMedicineSubj, eMedicineTopic etc in the Template:Infobox Disease of the article?

Anything known about the pathophysiology? In microscopic level? The article discusses genetic pathogenesis, but any features in autopsy etc.?

IMO, relationship between TS and OCD, TS and ADHD can be further summarised in "Causes and origins: genetic and epigenetic factors". You can create one more daughter article ;)

In "differential diagnosis", near the end, the article discusses the DD of tics in general. IMO, encephalitis, carbon monoxide poisoning are acute stuffs and should hardly create any probs. As a matter of fact, Duchenne, Down, Klinefelter's — less chance to be misdiagnosed as TS. Please see, and if needed, give inline citations. Of course those disorders may present with tics, but I do not know if those create problems while diagnosing Tourette's. Double check from other sources/texts if needed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extended comments ! I've got a killer busy week, and will chip away at these as I can, unless someone else gets to them first. I will add that info to the Infobox Disease, which should be easy, and coming up with the most important references will not be hard at all. I'd still really like to add the videos of tics to a box, but don't know how to create a box. Also, with respect to creating the separate References section, a couple of questions. I noticed that none of the other featured medical articles have that (e.g.; asthma, pneumonia ): I'm wondering if there's a difference between medical and other articles? My concern is that, once I add that section (with the verifiable reliable medical reference sources), the section will tend to attract vanity entries, and grow to include every book ever written about TS. Comments ? Working on the InfoBox, the DiseasesDB has outdated inaccurate information about Tourette's, including an inaccurate DSM definition, so I won't add it. The OMIM info is also inaccurate (this is so often the case with info about TS). I tried to add the MedlinePlus and eMedicine articles, but don't know how to make the infobox format correctly ? Sandy 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added eMedicine and OMIM in infobox. Please see. Regarding the referenece section (and absence of those in other medical articles), this is slowly becoming a style nowadays. Perhaps those articles (you cited as Medical FAs) were selected as FA some months back, and did not need a seperate reference section. Now you should be ready for all kinda of comments in an FAC. Just list those articles/books that were extensively used, in "references". However, that may go on to become a huge list, anyway ;). Please try to summarise those paragraphs where association of TS with ADHD and OCD are discussed. I do not have any idea about how to add videos. You can see the article Indian cuisine where thare is a seperate section called "Media" that includes a video file. See if that helps you. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length edit

Would like some guidance on desirable length. Reviewing past featured and main page articles, I found Military history of France at 64kb, Pink Floyd at 65 kb, and Rabindranath Tagore at 66 kb, so now I'm unsure about the guidelines on length? Sandy 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific guidelines on length, I mean no specific limit. There are subjects which simply cannot be shortened. On the other hand, a concise article can be read easily and it keeps the interest intact. With adequate number of daughter articles, a nicely written concise article is a better contender for FAC than a long article with a blast of info. However, as TS stands now, IMO, the length is not a problem right now.

WPWIAFA says the article "... is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles." Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit

The lead of the article is rather short, and it does not summarise the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]