Talk:Micropsia: Difference between revisions
Giantsjs2000 (talk | contribs) |
Justindchien (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Thanks for the input. The information from that article has now been included into the causes section with it as a reference.[[User:Giantsjs2000|Giantsjs2000]] ([[User talk:Giantsjs2000|talk]]) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
:Thanks for the input. The information from that article has now been included into the causes section with it as a reference.[[User:Giantsjs2000|Giantsjs2000]] ([[User talk:Giantsjs2000|talk]]) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
==BI481 Peer Review== |
|||
There seem to be a few redundancies between the introduction and the actual article. Perhaps making the introduction as more of a lead-in to the actual article rather than stating a summary could be more effective. |
|||
In the "causes" section, you say that use of hallucinogenic drugs could also contribute. There was only a little blurb in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph. |
|||
A few things in the "current and future research" section also overlap with "treatments." if you can combine the two into another subset of "future treatments," the later part of the "current and future research" section could be less confusing when it feels like some of those issues should have been addressed in the other section. |
|||
Overall, a good improvement to the previous article. |
|||
Revision as of 01:04, 29 November 2009
 | Micropsia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Medicine: Neurology GA‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Possible Revisions
You mentioned there are drugs being that block vascular endothelial growth factors being evaluated as a treatment option in your current and future research section. Can you go into more detail about how this mechanism works at the cellular level in relation to vision improvements? Lildevil3221 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Further details describing the mechanism behind blocking vascular endothelial growth factors as a treatment option would be more appropriate on the wiki page for VEGF or macular degeneration rather than on the wiki page of the resulting symptom Micropsia. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot of useful information on micropsia can be found in the paper by Ugarte M, Williamson TH, Horizontal and vertical micropsia following macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal-detachment surgical repair. This study quantifies the degree of dysmetropsia in the vertical and horizontal meridians independently and offers insight into a possible theory centered on a decrease in photoreceptor density that may lead to less stimulation in a certain region of the eye in some post-eye surgery patients that may lead to the phenomenon of micropsia. Another paper by de Wit G.C, Retinally-induced aniseikonia, also provides useful information along the same lines that may fit under the causes or physiology section of your article. Hassan.zayn (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. The information from that article has now been included into the causes section with it as a reference.Giantsjs2000 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
BI481 Peer Review
There seem to be a few redundancies between the introduction and the actual article. Perhaps making the introduction as more of a lead-in to the actual article rather than stating a summary could be more effective. In the "causes" section, you say that use of hallucinogenic drugs could also contribute. There was only a little blurb in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph. A few things in the "current and future research" section also overlap with "treatments." if you can combine the two into another subset of "future treatments," the later part of the "current and future research" section could be less confusing when it feels like some of those issues should have been addressed in the other section. Overall, a good improvement to the previous article.