Talk:Central neurocytoma

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. The revised article will be posted by March 24, 2014.

Update

Brought live additions to the page from: user:JNEURO, user:7243HODGSOZ, user:MUbrooke31, and Zxdsqw (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a significant amount of information available for research on this topic. However, the amount of pictures was limited, and the good pictures that were found couldn't be uploaded into wikipedia because of copyright laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNEURO (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #1

General comments: First off, great article! I think you guys have a lot of good information here, I learned so much and the article seems to flow nicely. Its not too choppy and you have good headings and sections. The only problems I had was that I was left wanting some further explanation and the language tended to be more technical/medical. First suggestion, go back through and make the article more accessible for lay people to read. There were some places where I was a little overwhelmed by the terminology used, particularly in the pathology section. Next, when you were explaining the treatment options you mentioned SRS and FCRT but didn’t fully explain what they did. Are these just examples of the two treatment options? And if all of the tumor is not removed, what is success rate of surgery? Recurrence? My third suggestion, is that you move the history section earlier in the article rather than leave it at the end.

1. Well written: I thought this article was quite well written with minimal grammatical/structural errors. It flowed well, but I would move the History section to the beginning of the article. Otherwise, I’d suggest trying to make it even more accessible to the lay person because there is some very technical vocabulary used which can be overwhelming to the reader.

2. Verifiable: it appears like your information comes from good sources and I wasn’t doubting what you were putting out. The proper citations were used in text.

3. Broad: the article covered a wide breadth of information about the topic. There wasn’t too much detail and if there were any gaps it is understandable seeing as how it is such an uncommon disease.

4. Neutral: the article never seemed biased in any direction, remaining in third person and presenting the information fairly.

5. Illustrated: the image provided was very helpful and interesting. I would suggest adding another photo of the brain with labeled sections so that the reader can look and locate where in the brain you are talking about.

I looked through the 8th source, “Treatment of Central Neurocytomas.” This seems like a good secondary source to be using with reputable references. All the places it is cited are correct in how the information is represented. However, after reading through the source and article there appears to be places in the Wikipedia article that you should be citing this source and aren’t (i.e. % of brain tumors, symptoms, history). Be careful and make sure you cite every time you take information from a source. Otherwise, this was a great source and used very well.Ehart25 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of the points. I moved the history up top, and the recurrence and surgery success rates were already in the article. The surgical procedures and various terms shouldn't be explained in this article, they have their own articles that are linked that explain them plenty for any reader who isn't familiar with them. Lastly, lowering the vocabulary in the pathology section would come at the cost of accuracy. Zxdsqw (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #2

General comments: The first time reading through the article, I thought it was well-written and that the information flowed nicely. After conducting my own search, it seemed like there was a sufficient amount of information available and what you made of it was clear and concise. There seemed to be good coverage of the available information. Right away, I noticed that the lead section was awfully wordy and didn’t provide a substantially overarching summary. A few questions popped up after reading through the article and could be worth answering if possible: are these tumors life-threatening? Are these tumors often or ever cancerous? Is the genetic component of the tumors identified? Is it easy to diagnose? Explicit answers to these questions would provide subjective and substantial background information to the topic. One important thing that also caught my eye was the Classification and external resources box because the picture is useful and also appropriate, but the links included within the box are unavailable/are dead links. This box would be more useful if it was updated and more links added.

1. Well-written: I thought that this article was very well written with minimal grammatical errors. One thing I noticed was use of pronouns sometimes lead to ambiguous statements (ex. the first sentence in history). I thought there was good incorporation of Wikipedia links, but further general explanation of complex topics would be helpful for readers (ex. what are the main characteristics of a grade II tumor as mentioned in the lead section?). At some points it seemed like a bunch of terms and links overwhelmed the sentences (especially in the lead section, which could use more layperson language). Expanding upon some of the terminology may give the reader additional background information necessary to understand the basics.

2. Verifiable with no original research: All of the information presented appears to come from reliable sources, with none taken from original research. All references cited appeared to be in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines, although some that were available on PubMed did not have proper linkage with PMIDs. It would be useful to have that linkage so readers can easily access the source. Proper Wikipedia format was used for in-text citations, although some sections mainly included only one source. It appears that, for the most part, had one primary source that was cited the most. Although it is understandable that the different reviews had different focuses that allowed for different sections within the article, it would be vital to cross reference the articles to ensure that there consistent information was included in this article. An addition of information from various sources may beneficial.

3. Broad in coverage: This article addressed the main aspects of the topic well with adequate summary. All relevant material is addressed and thoroughly discussed. As aforementioned, further explanation of terms could be useful to give background. The sections all contained appropriate and relevant information, that sometimes could be expanded upon, but overall, covered the basics.

4. Neutral: The article is presented without bias and includes consistent information throughout. Since a majority of the information came from general reviews, the article did not seem biased.

6. Illustrated: The included image (which was uploaded in 2012) is relevant to the topic and is well placed within the Classification and external resources box. The link and copyright status seemed legitimate as well. If possible, additional neuroimaging would be useful to depict what a scan would look like in terms of diagnosis of the tumor.

Source Verification: I verified source 7, “Neurocytoma: a comprehensive review." It is from a reputable medical journal, Neurosurgical Review, and is not a primary source. The information was correctly cited in the article, but I was surprised how little of this review was included in the article presented. It seemed that only two statements from the “Incidence” section used this article. Although it is understandable that the information may have also been taken from other sources (since there were many available), but since this specific review came from a Neurosurgical journal, I would have expected more references to this article in the “Therapy” section. Although the Treatment section was very thorough, there were some points that could use further explanation. The review is, indeed, comprehensive, but not too the point where it is overwhelming and I believe that more information than what was original pulled out of the article could be valuable, such as the genetics or other specific therapeutic strategies. Sydval612 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead links in the information box that can be fixed. I've also reworded and expanded the introduction section to be more encompassing, and include some of your suggestions. I don't however think the terminology needs expanding on as they have their own pages with that information should it be needed.

Primary Review #3

General comments: Very well written and organised article! While reading it l noticed multiple terms and/or words that would be beneficial for them to be cited or explained, since they are on the more scientific side and not everyone will be able to understand there meaning. Some word or terminology that can be modified are 'H &E staining', and 'fibrillary matrix'. Also, I would put the History section at the beginning of the article so that way the reader can have a strong background of what the disease is. Also l noticed that you guys talk about a specific gene being the cause of CNC but l wasn't able to find it in the article itself. Is there a reason why it wasn't part of the pathology or genetics section?

1. Well-written: The article contained very few grammatical errors, so great job! Also, great sentenced structure and summary of the most important points. I noticed that the references contain very in depth information with a lot of medical terminology, but as a group you were able to explain effectively besides the fact that some of those terms should also be cited or linked to another page. By linking the terms or adding further information about them, l feel like it will bring more flow to the article as all as making it more people friendly, especially those who are not scientific.

2. Verifiable with no original research: I went through all the sources presented and some of them did not have a direct attachment to the article. Also, some of the PMIDs on Pubmed did not work. There is a quote in the Pathology section that has no citing,“uniform, small-to-medium-sized cells with rounded nuclei, finely stippled chromatin and inconspicuous nucleoli, along with scant cytoplasm.” All the sources had a different focus on the disease, which would be best to analyse all to therefore draw in the important factors with the complete information.

3. Broad in coverage: The article contains essential information needed to explain the importance of the disease. It could have more of a background explanation on medical terminology to further help the audience understand the material.

4. Neutral: Due to the large amount of information gathered from each of the sources used, the article was written in an unbiased manner. It also was written in third person and presented the information in a fair and clear form.

6. Illustrated: The article contained images regarding the disease but had no explanation of them. Also, I would have posted an image of a normal tissue to see the effect of the disease on that tissue. I understand that Copyrights are very important and that finding such images would have been a difficult task. All the title and classifications were presented effectively.

Sources: The source l read and verified was #6 "Central neurocytoma: a synopsis of clinical and histological features." It looks like a good secondary source used in the Wikipedia article. Also, you were able to grab some information and added them to certain places throughout the article, but I think that in the Incidence and Pathology sections you could have added more information from the reviewed article. Make sure that each quote used is cited appropriately. Monibea11 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Monibea11Monibea11 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the history section up as you recommended. I've also added links to the pages of some of the more technical terms. I'm not expanding on them, however, as they have their own page that a reader who doesn't understand can look at. This page should stick to CNCs, not go into detail about tests and histology terms. Lastly the article never says there is one specific gene that plays a role, only that there is a genetic component. The little information available on the genetic component meant it made more sense wrapped into the incidence rate than any other section Zxdsqw (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #4

General Comments: Great article! The information in the sections was organized in an easy-to-follow manner and there were not any unnecessary details. It was well written with a strongly scientific tone. Lots of links to other Wikipedia pages were spread throughout the article, which helps with any possible confusion with the scientific terms. I think the "History" section should be moved up to the top as it works as a great introduction to the discovery of the condition. The last paragraph in the "History" section seems to be more of a summary or concluding paragraph rather than history of CNC. Maybe add that paragraph, or parts of it, to the end of the introductory paragraph? Overall, I think its a great and well-done scientific article.Zxdsqw (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Well-written: The article is very concise and easy to read for the most part. Although, the "Pathology" section was a little difficult to follow due to the heavy use of medical terms. Maybe add some sentences or slightly change them so that they may be a bit more understandable for those without the scientific background. There were very few grammatical and spelling errors that I had noticed throughout the article. None of the sections rambled on and the information was presented in a clean manner.

2. Verifiable with no original research: All in-text citations seem to be properly cited under "References." I also did not see anything that reflected use of original research when writing the article. References #2, 7, 11, and 14 did not have active links, but that may just be a reference number?

3. Broad in coverage: The article covers a good range of sections related to the medical condition. There was no significant rambling or side-tracking off of the topics in the sections. In the "Pathology" section, many of the terms used were not explained making the section seem specific.

4. Neutral: The article was very well written and fair with no biases in the information presented.

6. Illustrated: The image used at the top of the article was relevant and helpful with regards to CNC. The caption under the image also has links to terms that help with understanding what the image is directly showing, although it may be useful to add those links in the article also as they do not stand out to the reader in the caption of the image. The link to the image appears to follow the copyright rules.

Source verification: I read over source #9, "Central neurocytoma: a review." This source was clearly a secondary source and had very good and relevant information that was used in the Wikipedia article. Some of the information that was found in this source was not cited by this article, but that may be because that information was found in other sources used throughout the article. The information used from this source was properly cited in the text and in the "References" section. Umm517 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the last paragraph of the history section doesn't seem very history focused. I've changed that. Zxdsqw (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #1

Good article. More could be put into the smaller subsections. If you can't it's understandable. More information makes it look like more thorough research was done. The top picture was excellent, however more would not go amiss. The same goes with links. I believe things like gamma-knife surgery and other similar subjects should be linked so further research can be easily accomplished. I liked the way the article was written especially its simplicity and readability. All in all it was a very good production.Stockton Whitfield (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #2

The writing is very unbiased and textbook style. The organization and subsections are common areas that would definitely be inclusive in my first interest areas for the topic. Maybe the treatment summary could include introduction to all four treatments described. The section feels a little unfinished. The additional images section is very good to add, I like that. Also, There was links on topics, but I think instead of making a reader constantly click to other pages to understand, maybe add brief explanations on the links. One it can expand the article a bit and two add relevant information for more detail. Good Job! MissKell (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #3

Overall the article was nicely done. I'm glad you were able to find pictures. One suggestion I have is possible having a zoomed in picture in the pathology section showing what the section is describing like "circular/flower-like arrangements of cells with a small blood vessel at the centre". I also liked the box at the reference box in the top of the article however when I clicked on the links, it said no term found (MeSH) or took me to a random site that I wasn't sure what I was suppose to do from there (eMedicine). Maybe that is the way the site was set up or the links could possible be incorrect. Lastly, in the outcome and recurrence sections the second to last sentence has the abbreviation CN. I was wondering if that was something other than Central Neurocytoma (if so what?) or if it was a typo. Other than that I think it was a great article. Kkakes728 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #4

I really liked the formatting and general style of this article. It was clear, concise and generally very well put together and well stated. There were a lot of very useful links, but there could be more provided, especially in the "Pathology" section. The structure of the article follows the medical article guidelines very very well, but I think there might be an extra box that needs to be included because of the disease's genetic contribution. We did a disease and this was stressed as a possible issue with ours. Our disease did not end up having a genetic factor though, so we didn't have to look into it very much. It wouldn't hurt to reread that requirement in the guidelines. Otherwise, I think this sort of article is exactly what Wikipedia expects with articles on medical conditions! JBMarquette (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #5

Overall the article is very informative and well written. Great introduction, clearly discusses what the disease is, what tissue is being affected, where in the body the disease occurs, and the precise professional diagnostic classification. The epidemiology is a good place to start, although since you have a history section I think the history section should be moved to the front. The incidence rates and list of symptoms are very descriptive and give the reader a working knowledge of the prevalence and characteristics of this type of brain tumor. The treatment section of this article is very strong. Dividing the sections into the three sections of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy is extremely informative and very well researched. Same goes for the history section, however the placement of the history section is kind of strange. Great list of references and incorporation of previous user information along with new credible sources is nicely done. MU77 (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #6

The article was very interesting, clear, and concise! It was very well organized, and incorporated the important information about the disease. One suggestion is to add more citations in the Pathology section. It appears that as of right now, there was only one source consulted. To help establish a more reliable page, more information can be added from other sources to get more perspectives. A genetic component is mentioned in the Incidence page. Can that be elaborated? What information, even if it is very little, is known with regards to this disease and genetics? The article was well written, and a very interesting topic!! NWcoffee (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #7

This article was quite enjoyable to read. Well, as enjoyable as an article about tumors can be. Your organization was excellent and in general it was very well written. Here are my suggestions:

• Elaborate on your current points or add more information to the Incidence section.
• In the pathology section be careful that you are not depending on one source for this information.
• Maybe you could add an image of obstructive hydrocephalus?

Overall, I think you guys did an excellent job with this article! MUhelb (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #8

Overall great job, it was very interesting and easy to read! There were a few things that I thought could be improved. I think the "History" section might do better more towards the beginning of the article--it seemed a little out of place at the end. Also a minor point in this section was that the people who first discovered/characterized these tumors were only referred to by last name ever, and thus it was kind of difficult to know who was being talked about. One other thing was that the pathology section was a little dense to read through. Perhaps some more images to clarify what it all means would be helpful? Great job! EmmaAWeber (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)