Talk:Post-traumatic epilepsy/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Some comments as I go along reading this important article:

  • Generally: Some of the reference URLs need updating (Blackwell Synergy is down, PubMedCentral now works with the pmc= parameter). JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only found one that needed correcting, you must have gotten the PMC ones--thanks much! delldot talk 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally: WP:MEDMOS could be applied to the section titles and the section order. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "Definitions" to "Classification". I don't see anything out of order, although several are missing. Anything else needed? delldot talk 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is the problem that I tend to deviate somewhat from MEDMOS... JFW | T@lk 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally: While not a requirement, some of the redlinks may have stub potential. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: Does the intro need to contain so much information about the nomenclature of PTS vs PTE? Could this be moved to the article body ("Definition" section), with only a very basic definition remaining? JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro: The paragraph beginning with "Diagnostic measures" contains no references; while this is not strictly necessary, it would be nice. JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some added, I can add more if you think it's a good idea. Oddly, I've been told in other articles that there's too much referencing in the lead and that the lead needs few or no refs because it's a summary of content referenced in the article. Personally, I'm more in favor of erring on the side of too much referencing though. delldot talk 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. A single reference should be available for each statement. If that isn't possible then usually the statement is not suitable for the lead :-). JFW | T@lk 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the sentences should not need mid-sentence refs? Or that I should be able to find a single ref that covers all the statements? delldot talk 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally the latter. You are right that I find mid-sentence refs a bit much for the intro. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if I'm going to be able to find something that has all the points covered, so far a look through the reviews I've already used hasn't produced anything. I'll keep my eye out though. delldot talk 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitions: This section is generally a bit vague ("some definitions"). It is possible to generalise a bit here? JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ended up rewriting a lot of this section, how is it now? There's still the vagueness because disagreement on the definitions exist, I'm afraid. delldot talk 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics: Rename "Signs and symptoms" per WP:MEDMOS? JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really discuss signs and symptoms though, I'm not sure what the right name for this section could be. I could take the onset out and merge with some info from prognosis into a "Timing" section or something. The focal and generalized info could go into classification. delldot talk 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say a seizure is a symptom... There is going to be some content that could go either in this section or in the prognosis/epidemiology sections. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seizure types info is now under classification. delldot talk 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics: Is it possible to capture short definitions of seizure terminology such as "partial" and "complex"? JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics/Onset: Is this subsection needed? JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not, but I would like to keep the info on onset somewhere in the article since it's discussed in a lot of sources and it looks like an important area of study. Should it be incorporated into a "Timing" section or stuck into some other section? I don't know whether it would fit under prognosis: the question is how likely a person is to get PTE after a TBI and how much later. delldot talk 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the content is relevant, but is there a need to create a single subsection for it? JFW | T@lk 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's under "Prognosis" now, I couldn't figure out where else to put it. I'm not sure if this is a logical place since it's got more to do with the prognosis of the TBI than the PTE. I can move it somewhere else if necessary. delldot talk 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics/Onset: "the number may be 80–90% or more" who does this apply to? JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to At least 80–90% of people with PTE have their first seizure within two years of the TBI. -- is this clearer?
  • Pathophysiology: Section would benefit from some clarification of difficult terms (e.g. "excitotoxicity", "neurotransmitter"). Is there a secondary source that enumerates the different theories? What is the etymology of "kindling" in "kindling theory"? JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms explained, kindling theory etymology provided. I'll keep looking for the secondary source that covers the different theories. delldot talk 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't had any luck finding a single source that covers everything in as much detail as I have here, but ref name="Mani06" mentions each topic. delldot talk 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis: is CT actually used if MRI not diagnostic? Counter-intuitive, as MRI gives much higher definition. Sometimes CT is used if MRI shows a lesion that can't be determined, but if there is no lesion then CT is a waste of time. IMHO. Anyway. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, yeah, didn't mean to imply CT would be more accurate. Rearranged wording to "CT scanning can be used to detect brain lesions if MRI is unavailable" certainly availability, not sensitivity, would be the reason for CT. delldot talk 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis: do the sources make any mention of alternative causes for seizures after a head injury, such as medication use, metabolic disturbances (low sodium)? These may lead to seizures in any hospitalised patient without necessarily indicating a chronic seizure disorder. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple sentences added here, let me know if more is needed. delldot talk 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epidemiology: section could do with a bit more structure. I would ditch the single subheader, or alternatively introduce further headers. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added level 4 headers, and I like how these break up the text more, but that still leaves a single level 3. Alternately I could do away with all the level 4's and the level 3, or create a separate level 2 for risk factors. delldot talk 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: excellent content. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop now, but hopefully I can carry on later on today. JFW | T@lk 08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Have dome some copyediting myself and may come back to do some more. I'm sure there will be more comments after the above. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks so much for the thorough review and the work you've put in! I'll get to work on these today. delldot talk 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means give me a yelp when you're done. I can then offer further comments or decide to promote :-). JFW | T@lk 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Have to go now but I'll get back to work on these as soon as I can. Thanks for the great suggestions, sorry for the lackluster response. delldot talk 15:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a lacklustre response then I'm Jabba the Hutt. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't eat me! :P I'll keep working, but progress will likely be slow till after Monday. delldot talk 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I won't eat you. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part II[edit]

Some further comments in anticipation of GA approval:

  • Intro: I'm not sure if the definition of "symptomatic epilepsy" is that it is caused by a structural defect. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification: is there any way to generalise about the classification about PTS/PTE any further? The section appears to contradict itself a few times, if only because it calls on different sources. Has there been a consensus of any form? If there is, then perhaps more emphasis on this consensus is needed. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's not actually nearly as complicated as I had made it sound: it's unprovoked that matters, timing is just a way to judge that. Hopefully the changes I made clear this up. I also added some info on the controversy over whether to diagnose PTE after one seizure or to require more than one. I can't find any consensus statement though, but that would be nice. delldot talk 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pathophysiology: I have slightly rearranged the excitotoxicity material - revert me if I've made an error. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis: "any person is susceptible to seizures" - presumably this refers to people admitted to hospital after head trauma only. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I was trying to say that having head trauma doesn't protect you from seizures with other causes (e.g. metabolic), so seizures may not necessarily be due to TBI even in a TBI survivor (i.e. a diagnosis of PTE shouldn't be made just because a seizure occurs in a TBI survivor). Reworded, is this clearer? delldot talk 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It most certainly is. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis: "caregivers" - do you mean physicians? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generalized to include others (e.g. physician assistants). delldot talk 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prevention: no comments. JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treatment: is there any data at all about which anticonvulsant may be more effective in PTE? JFW | T@lk 10:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treatment: I had to look up "mesial" - short definition perhaps? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prognosis: is it known why stroke appears more common in PTE? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's weird, I can't find that info again in the source (possibly because there are a couple pages I can't see in Google books). And I can't find it anywhere else either. I've taken it out. delldot talk 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epidemiology: perhaps replace level 4 headers with "semicolon" headers to uncrowd the TOC? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epidemiology: different statistics are quoted from different sources wrt the incidence of PTE after mild/moderate/severe head injury. A case for grouping all the figures somewhere? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checked again. It's fine. Never mind. JFW | T@lk 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epidemiology: perhaps a 5-word clarification of standardized incidence ratio (as it is a redlink)? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best definition I could come up with for standardized incidence ratio was "a great deal of scary math stuff", but that was 7 words. Luckily, the original study had it in regular English too, so reworded in the article and changed the citation. delldot talk 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epidemiology: the numbers cited to Pitkänen et al are surely from a primary research study - perhaps add a direct reference to that study as well? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History: the section is mainly about surgery; are there any useful historical sources about non-surgical approaches? JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be about it... JFW | T@lk 10:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun working, but progress will likely still be slow. delldot talk 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff so far. Let me know when I can give this fine article the Green Blob. JFW | T@lk 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything, let me know if I missed any. delldot talk 12:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA done. Good. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-traumatic_epilepsy/GA1&oldid=1084079010"