Talk:Central nervous system cyst

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookeheim, MWaight95, Sistercerebrum, LettuceEdit. Peer reviewers: MKoehler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

student work

Our Wikipedia Draft is located on Sistercerebrum's sandbox page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistercerebrum (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

sandbox is User:Sistercerebrum/sandbox Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Goal of article

Research regarding cysts in the central nervous system (CNS) cover a large number of cyst types. The goal of this article was to offer an overarching summary discussing what all cysts of the CNS had in commom, how they formed, and other information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LettuceEdit (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

- It would be helpful for you to explain some of the medical terms you used like “spinal cord germ layers” and “neuraxis”

- It would be helpful to have a picture of some of the anatomical features you talk about like the pineal gland and the supracellar cistern

- You should probably have a source for your WHO quote

-Awaldera18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awaldera18 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BIOL 3501 Primary Review

- Overall, I think the page was well written and the information provided was helpful. I think that the grammar needs to be looked at once more because I found some mistakes throughout the article. As a part of this I would try to be careful when using "cyst" or "cysts" since it varies throughout the article. I also think that to truly understand this article and to learn about it, instead of just reading an overview of what it consists of, I would have to do more research by clicking on the links and going to other sources. By this there does not have to be an explanation of everything, but it would be good to add like a brief explanation or definition of what something is after mentioning it.

- I would find a way to rephrase how the CNS cyst types are presented in the introduction of the article. In the classification subheading under "Originating from the central nervous system tissue," I feel like the sentence starting with "Ordinary cysts found..." in the second paragraph of that section, does not need to be included.

- While reading the article I felt that even though it does include information about the topic, it was very broad. I think that it would be good to try and get a little more detailed when it comes to the topic. If this is not possible maybe think about describing a specific type of CNS cyst as an example instead of just mentioning it.

- The article just presents information about the topic and does not seem to include any personal opinion from the writers presenting a neutral and unbiased article.

- The images/illustrations used in the article are good and work well with the article and the information presented. If you would like to add one or two more images I believe a good section would be under the classification subheading to show an example of each type of cyst presented and explained.

- References 4 and 5 should be combined as they appear to be the same article. I believe that some of the sources could be used more to help add more detail or information to your article.

Danimcclo (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

Hello! Thank you for reviewing our article! We have made some adjustments to our page per your suggestion. We added more hyperlinks to further explain the medical terms used. We rephrased the first paragraph and we also fixed sources 4 and 5, by deleting source. On top of that, we have also added more illustrations.

BIOL 3501 Secondary Review

I agree with the prior secondary review on elucidating on the medical terms and including images.
The major things you should change is that your preview/description paragraph was done incorrectly, if you go on another Wiki page, you will see the description does not have a header, as it comes right after the main article heading (the one at the top of the page) and before the article's index. I also believe at the end of every paragraph should be a citation. The semicolon was also used incorrectly in the misplaced description. If everyone in the group does a read through every thing should be fine grammatically.

Hunter.ar (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BIOL 3501 Primary Review

1. Well written—Overall, the article is well written. There were a few times in the article where Cysts is capitalized and other times when it is lowercase, I would keep that consistent. Also, I would keep consistent when using “cyst” or “cysts.” In addition, the lead section does not need to be labeled as Central Nervous System Cysts, it just is there without a subheading. I also think that you need to define some of the terms you used, like asymptomatic and teratomas. Someone should be able to read this article and not have to do more research about some of the terms used. Using links for some of them is helpful, but even including a phrase defining the word would be super helpful.

2. Verifiable with no original research—I reviewed source 2. I only have access to the abstract, which looks as if it is a secondary source, but I cannot see the references section on the paper so I am not 100% certain. You only cited this source in the lead paragraph, which is correct, however it has a lot of useful information that could be used in the first classification sections. Both types of cysts are listed in this source and your article but it is not cited in your article. It also has details you might want to include in your article.

3. Broad in coverage—I would say that you offered 2 types of cysts not a large number. I may be mistaken, and if so, I would clarify this. I would also say that you gave a good overarching summary of what CNS cysts are and some details about them. Also, you have 2 classification subsections. I am assuming this is a mistake but I would make sure it change this.

4. Neutral—This article appears neutral and does not have any opinions.

5. Stable—n/a

6. Illustrated—The two pictures included add to the page well. The only place I would see an added picture is maybe a picture of the brain which includes some of the mentioned structures labeled.

MKoehler (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)MKoehler

Response

Hi! Thank you for reviewing our article. We took many of your suggestions into consideration and/or made changes to our articles. We fixed cyst capitalization throughout the entire article, terms that needed more defining were hyperlinked and/or a minor description was added as well.

In terms of source 2, we looked over the article it was found that the only information that pertained to all forms of CNS cysts was found in the abstract, the rest of the article did not offer information regarding the CNS cysts.

Also, for the non-central nervous system cysts we will work further on that to better explain.

Secondary Review

There is an unnecessary space before "Ordinary" in your classification section. Also your page could use more links to other Wikipedia articles. For example World Health Organization in the classification section. Also the first sentence of your "Central Nervous System Cyst" section is a little redundant. You say it primarily presents in the tissue of the CNS, I don't see how it could present itself anywhere else and still be a CNS cyst. Also consistency in the capitalization of words would be helpful; sometimes CNS cyst is in all caps sometimes only central is capitalized even within the sections themselves. Overall a very thorough and informative article, just a few small errors to fix. Kickpuncher08 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I would recommend linking some of the more scientific terms to other wikipedia articles if they exist (eg. benign, cerebrospinal fluid, pineal gland, suprecellar cistern, etc), and briefly defining other terms imperative to the understanding of your article to ensure that a reader with a non-scientific background might be able to read and comprehend your article without having to redirect themselves to multiple other articles in order to understand your topic. For example: “This classification of cysts are embedded in the Endoderm and the Ectoderm of the cranial or spinal cord germ layers.” could be written as “This classification of cysts are embedded in the Endoderm (inner layer) and the Ectoderm (outer layer) of the cranial or spinal cord germ layers (primary layers of cells in developing tissue)”. Other comments include minor grammatical errors (missing apostrophe in the first “Classification” sub-section entitled “Originating from...”, extra space in the first sentence of the second “Classification” section). I would also recommend picking one “name” to refer to the central nervous system as and refrain from switching back and forth (eg. from CNS to central nervous system, and back). Lastly, why are there two “Classification” sections? Breezyjo1223 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review

I have a lot of specific suggestions for each section as well as a general comment about each of the qualities of a 'good' wikipedia article. I also evaluated your Sundaram source.

Central Nervous System Cyst -eliminate the redundant ‘central nervous system cyst’ heading under the article title; make that section the lead (I’m assuming this was just overlooked when transferring to mainspace) -caption the brainscan image – what’s it showing? What type of scan? -put ‘CNS cyst’ in parentheses or add ‘or’ after the first comma -first sentence is a bit overly self-explanatory; try adding in a bit of information to it, such as saying it’s a tissue or fluid buildup in the CNS rather than just a cyst in the CNS -is the word ‘primarily’ necessary in the first sentence? Isn’t it only in the CNS if it’s a CNS cyst? -don’t capitalize ‘cysts’ in the third sentence -use a colon instead of a semi-colon, or you could rephrase the sentence to just say CNS cysts can originate from either CNS or non-CNS tissue (which is what I would do to make it more succinct) Classification -you may want to change this title slightly to make it more accurate for what you’re talking about – subtypes? -maybe add some pictures of the different subtypes if you can -do you know anything about the different physiologies of the two subtypes? That would be good information to add Non-CNS -you may want to change the bold titles to add in ‘cysts originating…’ to make it more clear -Restate the classification (non-CNS) in the first sentence; don’t start a section with ‘this’, make it easy for the reader -don’t capitalize endoderm or ectoderm -link germ layers -use more descriptive/scientific words for ‘normally’ and ‘take over’ -you may want to say ‘these cysts’ instead of ‘they’ to start out your third sentence, when you start several sentences in a row with ‘they’ it starts to sound vague and repetitive -areas, not area -link all of the areas and examples in the third and fourth sentences if possible -need a source after the third and/or fourth sentences CNS -similar to above, may want to adjust the title and don’t start the section with ‘this’ -use a more descriptive/scientific word for ‘take over’ -clarify what you mean by ‘abnormalities’ in the first sentence -reword ‘which will happen…nature.’, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say -add an apostrophe: system’s -link arachnoid mater and ventricular space -add in a few words to clarify what you mean by some examples (examples of what?) -link the examples if you can Signs and Symptoms -rephrase ‘some of the cysts’ to make it more specific, some of which cysts? All cysts? All subtypes of CNS cysts? -‘their’ location -remove ‘do’ from second sentence and change into to in: if the cysts develop in critical areas -add a comma before ‘they will present’ -I would remove ‘asymptomatic’ from your list of symptoms; you already mentioned it and asymptomatic isn’t technically a symptom -you may want to link some of these symptoms like hydrocephaly or hemorrhage Causes -‘cysts’ plural in the second sentence -remove ‘a’ from the second sentence; just ‘due to head injury or trauma’ -‘can sometimes’, not ‘sometimes can’ -you can remove the (s) from infection and change reason(s) to just reasons -rephrase ‘however for the most part’ to make it more professional Diagnosis -fix ‘scan/test’, pick one -link neurologist and neurosurgeon to clarify for people who don’t know the difference -may want to add in what the neurologist/neurosurgeons would do (to a neurologist, who would then…) -delete ‘the usage of’ -don’t capitalize immunohistochemistry but you should link it -add ‘which is used to…’ -link epithelial and arachnoid cysts’ -delete the second and -move the placement of ‘radiological and macroscopic examinations’ to make it clearer, either put it before immunohistochemistry or in a different sentence so that the commas don’t get weird -rephrase ‘baseline idea’ (more specific/scientific) -‘can be unsatisfactory’ ‘may not be able to (satisfactorily)’? -cool gif but you don’t need to say ‘gif showing’, just say ‘CT scan of a colloid cyst’ -put 3 before 7 for the sources Classification -Change either this or the previous title because now you have two classification sections -add system after ‘central nervous’ -add a comma after ‘as of 2016’ -link WHO? -announced that -apostrophe: cyst’s -will may be able to, don’t want to sound too confident in a conjecture -source the last sentences References -combine 4 and 5, they appear to be the same source -I notice some inconsistent formatting between all of your sources, double-check this

General – Qualities of a Good Article -Well-Written: there is a lot of room for improvement; the article is currently not written in too casual of a style with some organizational issues, typos, and lack of clarity. I made a lot of specific suggestions above -verifiable: I didn’t see any primary sources, which is good, but I did see several webpages which I think might be tertiary sources; make sure you’ve checked with the professor that these are okay -Broad in Coverage: good, I would just fix the titles/outline to reflect this -Neutral: good -Illustrated: good images, I would just add an illustration or image comparing the two subtypes if you can find one

Verifying a Source: Cysts of the CNS: A Clinicopathologic Study of 145 Cases – Sundaram (7) What you sourced -immunohistochemistry isn’t a diagnostic tool, it was used in studies What you didn’t source -CNS Cyst – second sentence (benign and filled with CSF, blood, etc.) -originating from non-CNS tissue – third/fourth sentences -signs and symptoms – clarify that the symptoms on the list were taken from this source What you didn’t use -you briefly mentioned that origins of a cyst could be studied from the type of cyst but this article has a lot of specifics about which cysts came from which sources, you could add some of that information -specify which symptoms are coming from which types of cysts ex) colloid cysts tend to raise intracranial pressure and cause hydrocephaly while epidermoid can cause visual disturbances and deafness, and Rathke’s are more asymptomatic

The page needs a lot of work but this is a good start

ScientificStarchild (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for your for in dept review of our article. Per your suggestion, we made an effort to fix all the grammatical mistakes in the article and the classification section was changed. Sources 4 and 5 were fixed, by deleting source 5, since they were the same source.

Source 7, yes you are correct it does discuss benign cysts, but the information that we used in the article originated from source 2. Therefore, it seems that sources 2 and 7 contained that same piece of information.

We will fix the information relating to immunohistochemistry.

Once again, thank you for suggestions.

Secondary Review

Overall this article is pretty well written. Most terms are defined and the sections are easy to understand. There are only some very minor changes to make. I would just bold the C in central nervous system in the beginning of the article, and if you could provide a definition for hydrocephalus that would be helpful. Other wise just look over it for grammatical fixes, like having commas after phrases or clauses. William.eggers (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)William Eggers

Secondary Review

I liked how terms like neuraxis where explained within the text. I suggest adding a figure illustrating the anatomy of the brain near the classification section. I would give a brief explanation of teratomas, dermoid, and Rathke’s cleft cyst. Again provide a brief explanation of the examples of cysts that originate from the central nervous tissue. Under signs and symptoms add a link to hydrocephalus. Under diagnosis do not use “patient” maybe change it to individuals, persons, or people. I recommend adding more details throughout the article. MMstudentMU (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well written: I think overall this article is fairly well-written, but contains a numerous minor grammatical errors.

• In the first paragraph, a colon should follow the phrase "CNS cysts are classified into two categories" instead of a semicolon.
• The beginning of the sentence "This classification of cysts are" is not grammatically correct. Change "This classification of" to "These".
• In the last sentence of the Originating from the central nervous system tissue subsection, the word "cysts" should have a possessive apostrophe.
• In the second sentence under the Causes section, the word "cyst" should be plural.

2. Verifiable with no original research: I did not sense any original research and everything seems to be cited correctly for the most part. I would include a citation for the WHO sentence. Additionally, there are a few paragraphs that have two citations at the end and none within the paragraph. Unless this information is all a thorough blend of the two sources, it might be useful to cite which parts come from which source.

3. Broad in coverage: The article is broad in content and covers the appropriate topics for a medical wikipedia page. The article achieves its goal of summarizing the CNS cysts and explaining their formation and common causes. The talk page goal mentions research on "a large number of cyst types" and so I think it may be helpful to have a specific section on the page that lists/hyperlinks the different types of these CNS cysts. A couple sentences seemed unnecessary:

• "Ordinary cysts found in different regions of the body, not including the central nervous system, are classified depending on how they look under a microscope." -- If this sentence talking about cysts not including those in the CNS I don't think it necessarily belongs in an article about CNS cysts. It also doesn't seem to flow with the rest of the article.
• The symptom bullet "Can be asymptomatic depending on type and location of cyst" is redundant, as it is already stated in the sentence preceding the bullets.

4. Neutral: For the most part this essay seems neutral and free of bias. The only suggestion I have would be to maybe reword or expand on the sentence: "These examinations are useful to get a baseline idea, but can be unsatisfactory to diagnosis CNS cysts", because it seems a bit like an opinion rather than a fact.

5. Illustrated: I think the images are satisfactory. I would suggest captioning your first image. Also, I like the gif, but the caption calls it a colloid cyst, which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so maybe explain somewhere what that is.

An additional note -- "arachnoid cyst" and "hydrocephalus" are two terms that I think would be useful to hyperlink.

Source verification: I looked at source number 8, "Brain and spinal cord cysts", which is the single source cited in the Causes section. Looking at this article, I don't believe that it is a secondary source, but rather a tertiary. Rather than being a review of a primary source it seems to just give general information about CNS cysts. It also is just published on a website rather than being from a credible database and it has no author. Additionally, the information taken from this article seems to take causes that were given as specific to certain types of CNS cysts and generalize them to be causes of all CNS cysts. Even though this source gives helpful general information regarding CNS cysts, I would recommend finding an additional source to utilize and cite in the Cause section. This source could instead be listed as an external source for further reading. Stromdabomb (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response

Hi! Thank you for you for reviewing our article. We reviewed the article, and made an attempt to correct the grammatical errors per your suggestion. We also hyperlinked "arachnoid cyst" and "hydrocephalus.'

Yes, the "Brain and spinal cord cysts" is a tertiary source, which we were looking to keep. With that in mind, we are planning to add more secondary sources to back our Wiki page. Also, we took your suggestion into consideration and added different types of cysts under the classification section. Thank you for pointing this out.

Secondary Review

The World Health Organization announcement should definitely be sourced. I think that this page did a great job giving a broad description, while still being very informative. If there is a way you can use pictures to distinguish the two different classifications I think that would be very helpful. Goc cimane (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

This seems to be well written. However, there seem to be a couple typos, although I'm not quite sure. First, the 'c' in central at the very beginning isn't bold like the other letters. Second, Immunohistochemistry only has one 'i' at the beginning. Other than those this seems to be well written although it would be nice to know why each of the symptoms occurs. Nevertheless, I appreciate the GIF and image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StepheJ (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)