Talk:Alcoholic polyneuropathy

http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic9.htm ranks #1 on Google for "Alcoholic polyneuropathy"NumberOneGoogle 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is being worked on the next couple days (March 23, 2011-March 25, 2011) for a neuroscience Wikipedia improvement project for the class BI481 at Boston College. The group members for this project are Tess Baril, David Chou and Kelly McCarthy and the link to our class page explaining the project is User:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Any input on our additions or suggestions for the topic would be much appreciated. All of our information for the project will be up by March 25, 2011 (Friday) and we will be editing the page after that date as suggestions come up on this discussion page. Tbaril52 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some fast comments

First of all let me say "Wow": this article has made a great improvement. Did anybody of the editors have experience as an editor?, because there are almost none of the usual initial mistakes...

Now some fast comments for further improvements (for the moment centred over format)

• Take a look to User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. I have posted there some common mistakes in beginners. Some are present in the article. (Detailed some below)
• There should not be space after the full stop and before the citation
• Titles in subsections should not be reduntant with the section title: instead of "sensory sympmtoms" the title would better be simply "sensory" since the title of the section is already "signs and symptoms" and so on (also occurs in management).
• In see also section there should not be articles that have already appeared and linked in the article: Policy is that when a link already appears in the article it should not appear also in the see also section. In this sense "see also" is the place for connected links not mentioned in text: In this case most of the articles linked in the see also section already appear in the article.
• Since alcoholic gastritis is linked but there is no article for it it would be a good idea to give a short explanation (a line) explaining its meaning.
• Lots of too technical language over the article that should be toned down: An example:An energy deficiency in Schwann cells would account for the disappearance of myelin on peripheral nerves seen in this disease. In peripheral nerves, oxidative enzyme activity is most concentrated around nodes of Ranvier and these locations may be most vulnerable to cofactor deprivation, reducing myelin impedance, causing current leakage and slowing transmission. Disruptions in conductance first affect the peripheral ends of the longest and largest peripheral nerve fibers since the integrity of the body depends on consistent axonal flux. Neural deterioration occurs at an accelerating rate since myelin damage reduces conductance and reduced conductance contributes to myelin degradation. Slowed conduction due to nodal disturbances causes segmental demyelination extending proximally, also known as retrograde degeneration. Do you think an average first year university student would understand anything?
• Differentiation between sensory and motor symptoms is good if sections are going to be expanded. If not they are too short and might be better to eliminate subsections and have all info inside the same section.

More to come as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the helpful tips! We are first time editors so even the small things help us out.

I've made the changes for all of the things you suggested so far except for the technical language issues-my group plans to meet tonight to go over the article and fix that up as well as add a few more things to sections that are still lacking important information.

If you have any more suggestions as we continue the work on the article they would be much appreciated.

Thanks again! Tbaril52 (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem... I plan to follow all your class articles and make comments on them both on content and format. --Garrondo (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments on quality of sources

I have taken a look at the sources you use: There is a mixture of high and medium quality sources: In my opinion

Best source: Koike H and Sobue G (2006): A recent review in the issue in a peer reviewed journal: This should be a great source. Anything sourced to any other of the sources if backed up by this one should be better sourced to this one.

Reviews, but quite old: Mawdsley C and Mayer RF (1965), Shields, Jr., RW (Mar/Apr 1985): Not bad for basic facts, but very old.

Not peer reviewed: emedicine, medline: They are not peer reviewed but are reliable websites, at least for the most basic facts.

All other: Seem primary sources: Take a look to WP:MEDRS: should be used with great care, avoided if possible and when used always making clear that they are primary (e.g: a genetic study reported..., in a clinical trial patients...)

In summary: you only have one "ideal" source, several suitable for basic facts, and some primary that might be better avoided. At this point (beginning of the project, but with the outline of the article written) it may be a good idea to search for some high quality sources to back up content. Maybe a search in google books would yield some result.

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We understand the issues with primary sources, we usually only used these to take information from their introductions about the disease involving basic facts that came from other articles they cited. Is it alright to leave those sources in, or should we remove them completely?

We also added information in a few of the sections using the google book Neuromuscular function and disease (thanks for that suggestion). We plan to look for more sources like this over the weekend and keep adding/backing up information in the article.

Thanks. Tbaril52 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Article would be better eliminating those primary sources, however, there are many other things that can also be improved. Therefore what I would do is to try to substitute them with the secondary sources as the article is improved: to improve the article you would most probably re-read the existing secondary sources and read new ones; if you notice that any line of the article can be referenced with these secondary sources go ahead, add it and eliminate the primary one. --Garrondo (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add that work over this article is being quite impressive and interaction with editors greater than in other articles. Feedback such as the one above after a review is most welcomed. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Images?

Now that you have written most of the article it would be great to add some images. Any image found in commons can be directly added to the article. If you do not find suitable images there, there are other (more complicated) possibilities.--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We've added a few images now, we plan to look for more over the weekend as well. We're hoping to just stick to the commons to avoid complications with copyright issues. Tbaril52 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a great beginning: while I feel it is a goo idea to stick to commons, specially for a short project like yours, here you have info on where to find other images and documents copyright free.--Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of in-depth peer-review

I feel the article right now is quite good, and I also think that editors are quite committed, as seen by their fast and ample responses to any of my comments. Taking this into account I feel that if editors are interested the article could profit a lot of a in-depth review, which I am willing to make. This peer-review would help to improve the article even more. If editors want and collaborate enough this peer-review could span over the next two weeks and prepare the article for a fast good article nomination before the end of their project. While time might not be enough for this nomination, I am quite sure that even if it is not a GA by the end of the term the advancements in the article would merit a high grade by Mr Burdo.--Garrondo (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make comments going from top to bottom of the article. I will add more comments as earlier comments are adressed

Signs and symtoms

• possibility of developing alcoholic polyneuropathy in a chronic alcoholic would be weight loss: I would think that a weight loss would always be a risk factor, altough this would be specially important in the case of alcoholics. How about adding something like "specially in a chronic alcoholic.
• The disease typically involves symmetric sensory: we are here talking about type of symptoms, while we later talk about its distribution. I would eliminate symmetric here, since it is later mentioned in a more appropiate sentence. Also later in the section it is talked about sensory and motor symptoms. I would also mention motor symptoms here.
• and painful paresthesias: since paresthesia is a critical word for the article I would explain its meaning with a short line: something like: and painful physical perceptions (paresthesias)
• In its early stages, symptoms of alcoholic polyneuropathy most commonly manifest themselves in the lower extremities, though severe cases may develop symptoms in distal upper extremities as well.[4] In most cases the legs are affected first, followed by the arms. The hands usually become involved when the symptoms reach above the ankle level.:The paragraph is highly redundant: it is said twice with only different words that it goes from bottom to top. I would drop the full first sentence and leave: In its early stages, symptoms of alcoholic polyneuropathy most commonly manifest themselves in the lower extremities, though severe cases may develop symptoms in distal upper extremities as well.[4] In most cases the legs are affected first, followed by the arms. The hands usually become involved when the symptoms reach above the ankle level. using ref 4 for the latter sentence. Also if the first sentence is finally kept a link to Distal#Proximal_and_distal for distal would be a good idea.
• On format: I see how you cite several times the same ref: it can be done simpler (without adding the second ref tag). I have fixed the first paragraphs. See this difference for how to do it.

More as soon as these are fixed. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, we made all of the changes. I was wondering if you still think the complicated language is an issue? Sometimes it seems like there is really no other way to simplify something. for example in the pathophysiology section we wrote: "In peripheral nerves, oxidative enzyme activity is most concentrated around the nodes of Ranvier, and these locations may be most vulnerable to cofactor deprivation which reduces myelin impedance, causes current leakage, and slows transmission." Some of these things are explained in the senctences before and links have been made to articles, but we know it is still pretty complicated. So if you have any suggestions for how to make these sections easier to read that would be great.

Also, we would love to do the in-depth peer review. As we're first time editors we are not exactly sure how it works. Should we be submitting it somewhere for the review?

Thanks again for all the help! Tbaril52 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Peer review exists, but in this case I would do the review, in a similar way to my comments this last time, since it usually takes some time to get a reviewer and I already know quite well the article. If everything goes well there might be a possibility of submitting the article to Wikipedia:Good article nominations before the end of your class project.

Regarding language and audience: I know it is really hard to make things easy to understand. I'll try to offer some suggestions although is not my area of expertise not being English my mother language. Nevertheless it does not have to be perfect only the best we can do. :-)

I also want to say that my comments are in most cases only proposals and right now you know more than me about the article subject so if you feel that at some point they are not adequate simply do not follow them (although some explanation would be great for me to learn something.)

--Garrondo (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Signs and symptms-Sensory

• As I see it all symptoms in this section are just different manifestations of paresthesias. Am I right? I would initiate the paragraph with something like "Common manifestations of paresthesias include...

More general comments

• Another way of aiming to a general audience is to use as less as possible the word "patient", since it is considered that such term is more appropiate in medical language. Since talking about a disease to eliminate it completely is impossible. However it is usually a good idea to alternate it with "individuals", "individuals/those/subjects/people with polyneuropathy". In other cases the term can be simply eliminated. Take a look if you have time to Parkinson's disease, an article that was very recently promoted to Featured article and in which I was the main editor to get a gist of this kind of editing.
• When everybody writes an article it is common to overuse the article title (in this case alcoholic polyneuropathy). However in most cases it is clear that we are referring to it. When I finish an article I search for the title all over the article and in each occasion I rethink if it is really necessary or it can be eliminated. You would probably be surprised by the number of times it is uselessly used.

The sensory symptoms are just manifestations of paresthesias so we did change the beginning of that paragraph. We also went through and changed a lot of the "patient" uses to other words. We did the same with "alcoholic polyneuropathy" but it was a bit more difficult-so if you think we should remove some more of those (or have suggestions on how to) let us know. Thanks! Tbaril52 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No need. It is much better now. I have been bold and added another image to the history section. If you do not think it is appropiate you can eliminate it. --Garrondo (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding images: I have taken a look to the caption of the images and in many of them you have had to have read the article to understand why the image is related to the article. I usually act in the belief that many casual readers come to an article and do not read much more than captions and lead. Therefore it is always a good idea to add to the caption a succint line relating it to the article. A great example of caption is the one in the lead since it firsts describes the image and then relates it to the article. Similarly in the caption "Total recorded alcohol consumption per capita of individuals 15 years or older, in liters of pure alcohol" I would add: "Alcoholism is the main cause of alcoholic polyneuropathy." and so on with the other images of the article. --Garrondo (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms-motor

• Are we sure that impotence only occurs in men? As an educated guess: I do not think that having paresthesias would leave indifferent women...
• difficulty swallowing: how about a link to dysphagia?
• speech impairment: how about a link to disarthria?
• sufferer: many people think it is even worse word than patient. I would rather use individual or patient.
• may also show other clinical features: it may be more correct to say "may also show other related disorders. Since Wernicke-korsakoff is a clinical syndrome.

--Garrondo (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hello Garrondo. I have taken out the potential confusion of "impotence" (male or female) and replaced it with erectile dysfunction. Links to a few of those other symptoms were also added. I also agree that sufferer sounds very negative. Again, thank you for your suggestions, as they have been incredibly helpful throughout this project.

Chouda (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem: Interaction with motivated editors is one of the most rewarding experiences in WP, and the work you are doing is great.--Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Causes-nutritional

• and they therefore can go for long periods of time without consuming normal foods. Sentence may be misleading to a non expert: it almost sounds as if "alcohol is better: you do not need to eat because it has many calories...". I would add a sentence on why not consuming normal foods is a problem.
• I do not know if you have seen anything (in sources) on the social aspect of alcoholism as a aggravating risk factor. Alcoholism may also result in loss of appetite, alcoholic gastritis, and vomiting, which decrease food intake is obviously true but I would think that also an alcoholic is less likely due to his addiction to prepare fresh, rich foods, go in an ordered way to the supermarket... If you have a source for it it might be worth adding a line.--Garrondo (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• From In addition, the consumption of alcohol leads to the presence of certain toxins in the body until the end of the section: talks more about alcoholic toxic effect than about nutritional deficiency. It should probably be moved and integrated into the next paragraph.--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Sentences on lead in wine: It sounds quite hipothetical to me to propose it as a cause of alcoholic polyneuropathy. Additionally I have gone to the source and there it is discussed in an hyphotetical way. Finally such source is a primary one. This is the perfect example of why secondary source are preferred. I doubt this relationship is uncontroversial so unless we find it in a secondary source relating lead in wine to the subject of the article it should probably be out of the article.--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• I am not sure if the same occurs to the whole paragraph, since it is all based in the same primary source. I think this paragraph should be based in a secondary source since causative statements are quite controversial. --Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol's toxic effect

More in this section is related to saying why it is not probable in comparison to the previous one. Taking into account that most of the time both theories (nutrition or toxic effect) are touced together and that both sections are quite short it might be a good idea to combine them together into a sole section.--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues in the nutritional and alcohol sections. I have also combined them-I agree they are too short to really stand on their own and there is overlap between them as well. I also took out the wine sentence, again I agree that since it is only a primary source it's not very reliable because it is more hypothetical. I found another source and added in a bit on the social aspect of alcoholism. I also removed some of the Vittadini, do you think I should take out more and try to find other sources to cover that? Thanks for the input! Tbaril52 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done, it looks much better now. I have nevertheless summarized a bit the social issues to the most relevant point and fully reordered the section into a what I think is a more logical organization. I hope you like it.--Garrondo (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Vittadini: I have taken the ref from the lead (it is usually not neccesary to cite refs in the lead). That leaves only two uses of the source along the article and the two of them for quite general statements. I think it is a reasonable use of the source.--Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also eliminated the heavy metal line in the lead since now it does not appear anymore in the body of the section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pathophysiology

This is usually one of the most complicated sections to make accesible. However this is reason to have extra care when writting it. I believe accesibility can be improved:

• beginning with segmental thinning and loss of myelin on the peripheral ends of the longest nerves: This sentence should be expanded. What does segmental thinning mean? what does refer to? Why the longest?...Right now it is quite obscure.
• A link to carbohydrate and metabolic?
• ATP: at no point in the article it is specified what does this abbreviation refer to.
• A link to conductance?

• This results in damage to or loss of nerve function seen in this disease: isn't something missing in the sentence? damage to what?.--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• I do not seem to understand the following sentence: An energy deficiency in myelin producing Schwann cells would account for the disappearance of myelin on peripheral nerves. Schwann cells produce myelin, but text in the article seems to say the opposite. Did you mean An energy deficiency in myelin-producing Schwann cells...? I suppose it would be better although still from my point of view incorrect since it implies that only some Schwann cells produce myelin... I believe the sentence has to be re-thought.--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• In peripheral nerves, oxidative enzyme activity is most concentrated around the nodes of Ranvier, and these locations may be most vulnerable to cofactor deprivation which reduces myelin impedance, causes current leakage, and slows transmission. Sentence is probably too complex. It could be broken into two. Also the which clause is a bit ambiguous: Did you want to say these locations are most vulnerable to cofactor deprivation, which... (In this case all cofactor deprivation produces the named effects) or as it written now these locations are most vulnerable to cofactor deprivation which... (Saying then that locations are only vulnerable to that cofactor deprivation that produces X effects and not to other factor deprivations)?.--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Slowed conduction causes segmental demyelination extending proximally, this is also known as retrograde degeneration: Not sure on what to link, but I am sure that paragraph would benefit from some links.--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• A link to ethanol in its first appearance in the article?--Garrondo (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi we've fixed your suggestions, the Schwann cell sentence was pretty confusing, does it work better now the way we reworded it? Also, does the clarification for the segmental thinning and longest nerves make sense as well? Thanks!Tbaril52 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Much, much better. While still a difficult section it is probably as good as it can get.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We did some further editing, trying to improve the grammar and the flow of the Pathophysiology section. Hopefully, it makes some more sense now. Chouda (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Tess, David and Kelly: First of all, you guys have drastically improved the previous article. You did an amazing job using images to relate some of the denser text areas (such as the biochemistry) to make it easier to follow as a reader. In the introduction, you may want to expand slightly on what is going to be discussed in the rest of the article as it is designed to be a brief overview which summarizes the page as a whole, rather than describing what the disease is. I noticed a lot of unnecessary medical terminology: although it does add to the complexity of the article, the majority of them are not defined and would make it difficult to follow for a reader not versed in a biological background. The way you all approached the causes of alcoholic polyneuropathy as both biological and social was very interesting, that is, expression the relation of an alcoholic’s lifestyle choices as a further source of physiological damage. The biggest issue with your article is the subject of research. You mention two or three times that a alcoholic polyneuropathy is a subject of current research, and there have been studies surrounding its causes and cases. Although you mention some of the areas of research it is rather vague, and you should give concrete examples or at the very least offer links to projects or studies that are either published or currently being investigated. My favorite part of the article was the pathophysiology section because it involved both the biological and chemical workings of the disease in a way that was thorough yet clear and easy to understand. Overall, you guys have done a great job! It is very well written article and has been evidently researched in depth.

(talk) (Crockeer (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for all of your ideas! We have expanded the introduction to include aspects such as symptoms, treatment, and those most likely to have the disease. If you think we need more, please let us know! There is a lot of medical terminology in the article, but the complexity in a lot of areas is difficult to simplify although we have been trying to fix this. We are hoping that all of the links to other wiki articles will help the readers to clarify any questions they might have about the terminology. If you have a specific place we should look to improve, could you point it out specifically? At the end of our article we have a "Research directions" section that addresses the areas of current research for this disease. I think if the reader is interested in this they can check out this section and then maybe use the articles that are cited to figure out where to go from there if they are interested in the ongoing research. I think to link articles in the middle of other sections might be confusing since we do have a specific section for the research directions. Thanks again for the input, let us know if you see anything else that needs improvement! Tbaril52 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article! I really enjoyed reading about this. You did a great job expanding the existing information on your topic! I found the management and prognosis sections to be very informative and well-written. They also gave the reader some insight into what it would be like to live with this syndrome. I also thought that your use of images was great. It broke up areas of the article that had a lot of text and made the article more visually-pleasing (which made me start thinking of ways I could add more images to my article). One thing that I found was detrimental to the article, however, was the use of some language that would probably not be understood by most people trying to get general information about the disease. As I read the article I found that I had to go back and re-read earlier paragraphs to remember what certain terms meant (and these were terms not necessary to the understanding of the disease). For example, in one paragraph you say “physical perceptions (paresthesias)” and a few paragraphs later just use the word paresthias. I had forgotten what this meant and had to search the above section to find it. This is not a huge issue, but I think your article could be made even better by simplifying some of this stuff to make it more readable. There are also a few areas where the grammar could be improved. For example, in the sentence “This deficiency would also disrupt glycolosis and also alter metabolism, transport, storage, and activation of essential nutrients”, the use of the world also twice in one sentence makes it read somewhat awkwardly. I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m being too nit-picky, your article is very well written so there’s not much to criticize! Good job!

KellyCardinal (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! We know that the article has a lot of complicated language, but a lot of it is necessary and we have tried to simplify any sections we can as we continue editing. We have tried to link as many complicated or confusing words as possible so the reader can follow the article no matter what stage they are at. I've changed the second use of paresthesias that you mentioned to "sensory issues," I hope that clarifies that section a little more! In addition, we have deleted the second "also" in that sentence you pointed out, if you see any other grammar issues let us know! Thanks again for the help! Tbaril52 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading this. I agree with the comments made by others, but really good job guys! One thing other people didn't mention, and this might be a subjective critique is they way that you linked words. For example, in the first paragraph you noted hot linked just 'nerves' rather than 'peripheral nerves'; additionally you linked just 'axonal' rather than 'axonal degeneration'. There are a few other instances throughout the text, but again this isn't a big issue, it could just use some refinement. Again this is subjective, but you might want to consider the order in which the content is presented, possibly including more of the content in a slightly longer introduction. Otherwise, I especially liked the epidemiology and treatments section. You guys really covered your basis!

Reedyziw (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about the links that we used, but a lot of times there are not articles on Wikipedia for a thing like 'axonal degeneration' so we would link the next best thing ('axon') in the hopes that the reader could clarify what an axon is and then figure out that the degeneration would happen to these. Also, we considered linking 'peripheral nervous system' to the 'peripheral nerves' in the introduction, but the 'nerves' article has a lot more information that is relevant to our topic so again we are hoping that the reader can make the connection that the nerves we are talking about are in the periphery. We also added a bit on to the introduction, if you think it needs more, please let us know! Thanks for the input! Tbaril52 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, great job on the article. I have a couple of suggestions for improving this article, a few of which have already been pointed out in other comments, but there are really only so many criticisms that can be made here. The introduction could use some more general information to better summarize the disorder, such as listing some of the main symptoms. The research section also needs to be expanded in terms of elaboration on current research projects. Lastly, I see that there are a lot of medical terms and scientific concepts being discussed in a way that may not be approachable to those without a scientific background, however I do not think that it is too difficult to follow. Maybe just a few tweaks here and there. Otherwise I’m very impressed with the article. It was a very interesting read, and I really liked that you included a full section on management instead of merely mentioning it in another section. The pictures are relevant and of good quality. Adding a couple more pictures would only make this article better. Keep it up! Good luck on achieving GA status!

Bsnawder (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We have expanded the introduction (added more about the symptoms, treatment, and those affected by the disease), if you think it needs more let us know. We also added to the research section-expanded on the second topic and added a third. Lastly, in response to the medical terms, it is a difficult article to simplify for readers, we've linked lots of other articles to help with any confusion there might be. We've also tried to simplify sections over this project and if you see any specific areas where that could use improvement, please point them out. Thank you for the suggestions, they were really helpful! Tbaril52 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a very well-written article and it’s difficult to find things to criticize. I’ll try and point out a few specifics that will hopefully help out. First, I definitely like that the introduction is short and directly to the point. It clearly and quickly defines alcoholic polyneuropathy, it gives a brief overview of its anatomical effects, and it defines its underlying causes. However you might want to consider adding a few more sentences just to highlight some of the things that you will mention later on in your article. You do a great job of discussing many different aspects of alcoholic polyneuropathy and if some of these things are referenced in your introduction it might do a nice job of tying together the entirety of the article. Additionally, you do a good job of linking several other articles throughout the article. However at times I found myself spending a decent amount of time clicking on links to other articles to understand the meanings of the highlighted terms. Perhaps you could consider removing some of these links and terms that are not essential to your topic. When doing this, you can also consider that some of these terms may be unfamiliar and even confusing to people who do not have backgrounds in biology or neuroscience. I certainly do not think it is harmful to simplify portions of the article so that it is understandable to the common reader. Also, I liked that you pointed out and discussed the “History” of alcoholic polyneuropathy. Personally when I read about a disorder, I always find it interesting to see how it affects common people. If you could discuss a current case of this disorder, in a well-known person for example, that might be something that people will find interesting to read about. Finally, in your “Research Directions” sections, you might consider expanding on the second item that you mentioned. If you could describe or explain how the choice of an alcoholic beverage could affect the development of alcoholic polyneuropathy, I think it would be a very interesting topic for people to read about because it caught my attention. As I mentioned, I picked out some specifics that I had suggestions on but overall I think this is an excellent article. It is very well written, organized, and it is extremely informative! It is very evident that a lot of research was done before this article was written, which I appreciate. (NeuroCaroline (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for all the improvement ideas! We've expanded the introduction a bit to include a little about the treatment as well as the people who are most likely to have this disease. Let us know if you think it needs more. We've linked all of the articles for the reason (as you pointed out) that a lot of readers will not be biologically oriented. We think that these will help them out if they need to figure out an unfamiliar term. We have actually already simplified the article for readers, but a lot of the sections (such as pathophysiology) are going to be slightly confusing no matter how much we try and simplify them-we hope that the links help with that confusion. However, if you see a specific spot where you think a link should be eliminated please let us know and we will consider it!

The idea about including a famous person with alcoholic polyneuropathy is a good one, but unfortunately we have not come across any. I'm sure people are kind of private about this disease and their name would actually have to be in a secondary source for us to include it in the article. If we do happen to find someone we will definitely put them into the article though! Lastly, we expanded on the second part of the research directions-if you think it needs more let us know, but we hope we've clarified it for you! Again thank you for all the suggestions! Tbaril52 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Great article, especially the pathophysiology section! This was very informative and easy to understand in my opinion, and I think that the different sections flowed together very well! The one part that confused me a little bit was in the Signs and Symptoms section, when you say that “The symptoms affecting the sensory and motor systems seem to develop in a symmetrical pattern”. What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean homologous areas of the body are affected at the same time, such as the right and left foot, or that, generally when one side of the body is affected, the other side will be affected at some point too? I know you go on to explain that the legs are affected first, followed by the arms, but I just wasn’t exactly sure what “symmetrical manner” refers to here, so maybe you can just clarify that (it’s the second sentence of the second paragraph under “Signs and Symptoms”). Also, I thought your epidemiology section was very interesting, and really like the map image to show the global spread of this condition! Nice touch! Wilsonga (talk) 2:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! We added a second part to the symmetrical sentence so it now reads, "The symptoms affecting the sensory and motor systems seem to develop in a symmetrical pattern; for example, if the right foot is affected, the left foot will be affected simultaneously or soon thereafter as well." Hopefully that clears up the confusion, thanks again. Tbaril52 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work here guys. Very detailed and succinct, leaving very little to criticize. Honestly the only thing I could possibly see you changing would be switching the order of the sections up a little bit. The history section seems a little out of place and you might want to put that at the very beginning above signs and symptoms. Also, I would put Prognosis after Diagnosis and before Management. As well, I think that the Epidemiology and Pathophysiology sections could be next to each other. Mainly, the Epidemiology and History sections seem a little out of place at the end. The Pathophysiology section is fantastic, well done. My only other thought would be the same as above with the paresthesias comment. Other than that, great job guys. Well done with the pictures.Swjohnson8 (talk) 4:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We actually organized the article so that it correlates with other Wikipedia articles that are diseases so we will leave it as is in order to keep it simple for other users to follow. Thanks for the suggestion and input! Tbaril52 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with comments above but with some remarks: Research directions could be longer, but it should be balanced with secondary sources. While use of primary sources in this section is more flexible than in others if there are no secondary info in research directions to simply enumerate studies found on the issue is sometimes not the best idea. It similarly happens with the issue of talking about a famous person. Regarding placement of sections: I would leave it as it is, mainly for convention with other wikipedia articles.--Garrondo (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We added one other area of research to the "Research directions" that comes from a secondary source. We also don't think we can add anything about a famous person at this time because we have not come across a case where someone is mentioned in a secondary source to have the disease. Lastly, we have left the sections as they are because as you pointed out, the other Wiki disease articles are organized in this way. Thanks for the input! Tbaril52 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Garrondo we have made changes based on the peer reviews by those in our class and all of the suggestions you have made as well--should we continue with the in-depth peer review or do you think our article is ready to be submitted for a possible GA? I'm not sure how long it takes once submitted, but the due date for the project edits is April 29 and the GA status (for extra credit) is due by May 6th. Thanks for all the help!Tbaril52 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Boston College BI481 Project End

Nice job Tess, David and Kelly. The article is in great shape now compared to the starting point. I would have liked to see the research directions section written in the normal style instead of presented as a list, but aside from that very good. NeuroJoe (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)