Talk:Myoclonic dystonia

Biol 3501 Primary Review netta

Myoclonus Dystonia

Overview:

Rework the second paragraph introducing the syndrome. It’s worded in a way that’s not the easiest to understand. The symptoms, treatment and etiology sections were beautifully written. it contains the right amount of information without going too far off track.

A good article is:

well written: This article contains great information that’s executed in a easy to understand manner.

Verifiable with no research: This article uses a lot of resources all of which are secondary.

Broad in it’s coverage: This article covers the right amount of information one would need when acquiring about such a rare syndrome.

Neutral: The writing is purely informational without taking a side

Stable: Not needed

Illustrated: There was actually a video represented and it perfectly displayed the symptoms of a person with said condition.

Verified Article: Myclonic Disorders: a practical approach for diagnosis and treatment The article pinpoints how this disease is treated. Its treated through multiple drugs and not just one type, thus the patient has to take combined medication. This information was illustrated in the treatment section and honestly, there’s nothing I would add from the article. This group added the relevant information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nettap01 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Primary Review Response: Thank you Ray'Netta for your comments! We also thought the video was relevant, but we decided to change the description of the video to explain it better. Hmarie18 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Goal of Page

The goal for this page is to explain the etiology of the disorder by identifying the genetic mutations that cause M-D. We will be explaining how, biologically, the dysfunctional protein (s), such as ϵ-sarcoglycan (SGCE gene product), can possibly lead to M-D. By discussing the genetic etiology of the disorder we will mention its similarities to other muscular disorders. We will describe the symptoms of the disease, characterizing it as a combination of both myoclonus and dystonia. Links to both of their Wikipedia pages will be present so that readers can individually look at both myoclonus and dystonia. We will also characterize the disorder under the class of hyperkinetic movement disorders, and explain briefly how/why it falls under this class of disorders, and how similar/different is to other varying disorders. If we mention other disorders, will provide links to their respective Wikipedia pages. We will also be talking about the various ways to treat M-D. Such treatments include deep brain stimulation (DPS) and alcohol. We will explain certain complications that arise from treating M-D, including substance abuse. Additionally, an explanation of how the treatment for M-D is different than how myoclonus and dystonia are treated will be provided (i.e. certain drugs that are effective in treating dystonia, such as anticholinergics, are ineffective or often counteractive in treating M-D). Finally, in our conclusion, we will summarize the diagnosis, treatment options, and provide information on the future direction of characterizing/treating M-D and/or hyperkinetic movement disorders.

We are still working on citing information in some of the paragraphs, putting more information about treatment options, and fixing the intro. We also would like to add another image somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADRUCK22 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

First Review: In the introduction, the first sentence seems out of place and not the best way to start the article, although the information about the gene is still important - might be better placed elsewhere in the introduction or somewhere else in the article. Under Symptoms-myoclonus, the sentience “Classifying myoclonus physiologically is most the most common characterization and more advantageous for treatment of those diagnosed” is confusing. However, the Etiology section was extremely detailed. The last section, the “external links” tab, seemed a little random. And it links to a pubmed page, which might be more appropriate in the reference section. Overall, this article is very detailed and well written. Garrettmu18 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Garrett

Response to Primary

Thank you for your response and providing another set of eyes to notice our grammar and wording mistake in the symptom section. We have re-worded that sentence so that it flows better and is less confusing. The table in the external links section was deleted due to incorrect information and the url was moved to the reference section, allowing us to delete the subsection entirely. Thank you for bringing that to our attention! Dassowsd (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, the article was very well written and detailed. Fixing the intro and adding images as you plan to do will help. One other thing to keep in mind is that in your deep brain stimulation section there is information about a single case study, which seems to be more of a primary source than secondary. Just something to look into. KCole0034 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Secondary

Thanks for the review! We improved the intro immensely and added another image to the treatments section explaining deep brain stimulation. We double checked that we had secondary sources in the deep brain stimulation section-so thanks for pointing that out. Pottera1129 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

This article was very well written and informative. In your intro, one thing to improve on is to make it flow a little better, perhaps a stronger first sentence to start the article off. At some points in the intro it seemed like it was going from one topic to another. Another thing to comment on is in the the last sentence of your paragraph you wrote "will most probably stay healthy". The "probably" doesn't seem promising, maybe change it to "most likely stay healthy". In the symptoms section where you talk about "myoclonus is classified as cortical, subcortical, peripheral or spinal". you should elaborate more on that if you can find more information about it because you introduce it, but you do not really explain it.

The source that I looked at was "Raymond, Deborah; Ozelius, Laurie (1993-01-01). Pagon, Roberta A.; Adam, Margaret P.; Ardinger, Holly H.; Wallace, Stephanie E.; Amemiya, Anne; Bean, Lora JH; Bird, Thomas D.; Fong, Chin-To; Mefford, Heather C., eds. Myoclonus-Dystonia. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle. PMID 20301587." This was a good secondary source because it met the criteria that of a secondart source. It has good information about the different treatments that could of myoclonic dystonia, which I saw that you put in your article. Furthermore, it has great information about genetic testing, and clinical characteristics. This article gives a detailed description of this disorder, and about the different treatments that are being done. Very interesting secondary source.

Other than that, all your references are listed correctly, and all the sections provide good detail for someone who does not have a biology background, would understand. I like the fact that you decided to put a video helps visualize Mycolonic dystonia. Once you add some more images and fix the minor changes will defiantly help your article. Overall good job!Kmorun (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review Thank you for your comments. We especially appreciate your suggestions regarding our intro section. The introduction was from the original article, however, we did not want to change it before completing the rest of the article. After adding to our other sections, we were able to construct an introduction that fit the scope of the paper and summarized the major points of our sections. We changed the first sentence of the intro so that it described what happens to a person with myoclonus dystonia. We hoped that this would give readers an image of myoclonus dystonia when moving forward with the article. Additionally, we reordered the three intro paragraphs to mimic the structure of our article: the first paragraph discussed general facts of myoclonus dystonia and a brief description of symptoms, the second paragraph discussed the etiology/genetic basis of the disorder, and the last paragraph discussed possible treatment options. We thought that this format made the intro flow better. We addressed your concern about the phrase “will most probably stay healthy” and reworded it in the second paragraph of the intro. We decided we couldn’t make a definitive statement because there are still cases were females are affected. In regards to your comments about our symptoms section, we added an explanation of what peripheral and spinal myoclonus are and that they are less common than cortical and subcortical. We also added an image in our treatment section to diagram DBS. Thanks again for your review, please let us know if there are any more things that we can improve on!ADRUCK22 (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Npsar20

I thought you guys did a good job with the article. The video offers a great perspective at what this syndrome actually is and what happens. I think a picture or two would make the article look a little more lively. The etiology and treatment sections were very well done, so good job on that. Maybe under the Symptoms section you can actually explain a few to provide further understanding to the reader. Other than that, good job! Npsar20 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Npsar20

Response

Thanks for the review! Glad the article was to your approval! We added another image to add to the look of the page. We did not go more in depth for the symptoms solely becasue the myoclonus and dystonia symptoms have their own pages on wikipedia. In addition, many of the symptoms had their own page which we linked so viewers can go to those for clarification on specific symptoms.

Pottera1129 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article is so descriptive and informative. It was really easy to understand, especially for the audience that may not have a background in the sciences. Really liked how you have the “Treatment” section structured. I like that the bullet points and picture help to break up the page so it is not just a block of words that the reader must sort through. Like said above a little stronger introduction would help immensely. Loved this page, really nice work.RReilles24 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review (Marquette BIOL 3501)

This article was very well written. It provided information in a descriptive yet was easy to follow. The comparison of the myoclonic dystonia to the other isolated forms myoclonus and dystonia was particularly informative as it was able to provide a difference between the somewhat similar ailments. A possible suggestion would be to increase the introduction section, but other than that, well written. Connor.archer (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)connor.archer

Secondary Review for Myoclonic dystonia by SinghM154

Overall the article was well written and informative. It showed that the group members had done their research on the subject, and this could definitely be seen with the given reference sections. I loved the take on putting a video in the little classification box, it was nice to be able to see it in that way. However, I think that it would be beneficial to also include some images in the rest of the article, maybe in the the other sections of the page. In the section of treatments, maybe have links to other wiki-pages that for the listed drugs so there is more information for the readers, that doesn't have to be necessarily written by the group. Other than that the article was great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinghM154 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review (BIOL 3501)

I thought this was a nicely written article. The structure you used helped me to navigate through the whole disease without going into extraneous information. When you first mentioned the symptoms, I thought it was a bit bare, until I kept on reading the subsections of both Myoclonus and Dystonia. By providing a short description of both these sub forms and then discussing the disease as a whole, it made things clear and easy to understand. Also, the sections on Etiology and Treatments were well done and sources for the whole article seemed sufficient. The video was a nice addition, but maybe include a short description of what you are supposed to see in the caption beneath. I kind of had to rewind and re-watch to find that the rapid arm movements were involuntary. Other than that, this was well done. Chinski72 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)chinski72

Primary Review

1) Well Written: This article is written in a way that is easy to understand while still getting the information across. Very well executed. 2) Verifiable with no original research: The resources that were used are all secondary. 3) Broad in Coverage: This article covers a lot of different information from symptoms, etiology, and treatment. This provides a lot of different perspectives that a researcher might inquire when researching a syndrome. 4) Neutral: There are no noticeable bias in the information provided. 5) Illustrated: The illustration in this article is a video of a person with the symptoms of myoclonic dystonia. Something that could add to the illustration is a better caption of it. At first, it looks like a person just writing, but with a well written caption, it would describe the symptoms of the syndrome.

Verified Article:

"Myoclonic disorders: a practical approach for diagnosis and treatment"

This article does a great job in covering all information that is provided in the secondary source when writing the treatment section. As the article entails, not one medication can treat the syndrome becasue there are multiple symptoms of the syndrome, so many different drugs need to be taken to compensate for that as stated in their article (benztropine, clonazepam, neuroleptics, dopamine agonists, and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)). Personally, I think they did a great job in using all the information that they were to work with and adding their on work in order to create a well written wikipedia article. Good job. Kuya365 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review

Thank you for the review and your time. We have rewritten the caption for the video to explain what is occurring and how it relates to our syndrome. I am glad you found our article helpful and well thought out. Hopefully what we have added will further explain our topic while still remaining straightforward like you said. Pottera1129 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary BIOL 3501

The article was a little difficult to read in the beginning. With the basic background information on knowing it was a disease, it was hard to get a better understanding from the opening paragraph with little description and only links to constantly have to refer to. The material of topics was a good range, offering information that can be used to develop a good basis if not more of the topic in the chosen areas. There was no strong preference on a certain path of treatment helping to reduce the symptoms to take or how the paragraphs for the other topics are written. The illustration used, showing a video, was a unique approach and executed well helpig understand Myoclonic dystonia. Overall it had good coverage in a structured way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KpocMU (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your comments. We hope that our introduction makes more sense, as we tried expand on symptoms, etiology, and treatment from the original page. We also adjusted the caption of the video so that it makes more sense in how it portrays the early symptoms of myoclonuns dystonia, making it more clear why it was placed in the introduction. Thanks again for the input, please let us know any other ways in which we can improve this article!ADRUCK22 (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)