Talk:Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program.

Secondary Review

I think that this was a well done topics. I would definitely say that you could add more links to allows people to just go from one wikipedia page to another instead of going to google. Another thing would be some grammar issues, and there are periods missing under the Diagnosis heading. Other than these things, I really like that you provided some treatments available. Good work! JamesBond34 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

JamesBond34 - Thanks for the suggestions. We added more links and fixed all the grammar issues to make the article more readable. Thanks for your critiques, we really appreciate it! Marq808, Umm517, and D23sunn (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I learned a lot after reading your page, and I appreciate your attention to detail in the history and symptoms of CPH. Specifically, I never knew that there was an International Headache Society – brilliant. Below are just a few comments and suggestions in the order with which they present in your page.

• Introduction: Is the pain found more so on one side versus the other?
• Diagnosis: I suggest either defining what ‘ipsilateral’ means, or find a relevant, already existing Wikipedia page in order to direct readers there for more information.
• Epidemiology: I found this section to be very interesting and appreciate the comparison between CPH and cluster headaches, especially because of the gender differences.
• Symptoms: Just as I suggested in the introduction section, can you further specify as to what side of the head CPH sufferers typically experience the most pain?
• Treatments: I do not find it necessary to specifically say who conducted the studies you refer too, as you will be citing the primary source through which you utilized at the end of your statement. With that, make sure that the article you are citing from for this specific study is a primary (versus secondary) article.

Overall, nice start! Please let me know if you need any further clarification for the suggestions I have provided. I look forward to seeing your final product! MU Senior2014 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

MU Senior2014- Thank you for your review on our article. We were able to make the introduction clearer and add a Wiktionary link to the word 'ipsilateral' in the diagnosis section. We stated the names of those who conducted the studies in the treatments section as a reference to the case studies, or primary sources. Marq808, D23sunn, Umm517 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary review

This article was well-written, in my opinion. Although there wasn't a great deal of information on the topic, I think you guys did good with what you had. Also, I appreciate the fact that the article was not too broad, yet not too specific; it was just broad enough that someone with no background on the topic could get good idea of what Chronic paroxysmal hemicrania is. great work guys.

Thank you,

Ngakona (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ngakona-Thank you for your review! Our goal for this article was to cover CPH extensively but to do so in a way that was easy to understand. We are glad that you think we accomplished our goal. D23sunn, Umm517 and Marq808 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to Reviewers

There isn't a great deal of information available on Chronic Paroxysmal Hemicrania. There aren't any known causes of this disease either. Therefore we primarily focused on the history of the disease and what occurs after a person believes they have it for the basis of our subsections and the focus of this article.--D23sunn (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #1

Although there may not be a lot of information available of CPH, this article was well-written. The article is both straightforward and clear about CPH. I think it would be beneficial if this article included more Wikilinks. For some of the information, such as Rhinorrhea and oedema for example, it would be helpful to have those linked.

For verifiability, your references are present and in-line citations are correct. It seems as some of the sentences in this article are missing in-line citations, such as the statistics under epidemiology. Also some of your references do not seem to be formatted correctly. I suggest using the book citation template during editing mode to make sure they are correct. I noticed this because book titles should be italicized, and it looks like right now they are not. Going through the references as well, it looks like the article cited “Chronic Paroxysmal Hemicrania And Hemicrania Continua Responding To Topiramate: Two Case Reports” is a primary source, which goes against the no original research guidelines.

The article does address the main aspects of CPH, which includes staying focused and giving the appropriate amount of information. Double check the article for grammar errors and punctuation mistakes. For neutrality, the only issue is that primary source listed above. As for images, I understand it would be hard to find some without a lot of information on CPH, but as a suggestion maybe include a diagram of the general area where CPH occurs specifically in the head.

The source I verified is: Eadie, Mervyn J. "Chronic Paroxysmal Hemicrania." Headache: Through the Centuries. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. 222-24. Print. The source qualifies as a secondary source. Some issues with this citation format are that the title of the book is not italicized, and Oxford UP should be spelled out completely to Oxford University Press. It also looks like an ISBN number is easily available to add to the citation (0199860971 or 9780199860975). The source did say what the article says it did. There is some treatment information present in this source that seems to be unused as well as more differences listed between CPH and cluster headaches that could be good to include as well, rather than just talking about gender differences.

Although there are no known causes for CPH, I suggest making a section for it in the article so that in the future when that information is available it can be added. Sargento21 (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sargento21- Thanks for your review on our article! We added more wikilinks to the scientific terms that were found on Wikipedia. We were also able to italicize the book titles in the references section, but refrained from adding ISBN numbers because it wasn't completely necessary and not often found in citations. “Chronic Paroxysmal Hemicrania And Hemicrania Continua Responding To Topiramate: Two Case Reports” was added to this article as a reference to show the effectiveness of topiramate in treating CPH symptoms in depth instead of simply stating that Topiramate was an effective treatment. We double checked the article for grammar errors and readability. We took your suggestions and created a section on possible secondary causes for CPH and a comparison section between CPH and cluster headaches. Thanks for your help! Hope you have a nice day!--Marq808, Umm517, D23sunn (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #2

General comments: Based on the information you provided in the note to reviewers your article layout seems appropriate for the resources available on your topic. One thing I thought after reading the article is that adding in some additional links to other Wikipedia article would be really helpful for readers who may not be familiar with the topic. (for example: the brain regions in your diagnosis section) Below are a few comments on the 5 requirements of a good article addressed in this assignment:

1. Well-written: I noticed a few comma issues (ex: in the lead paragraph), and at some points the sentences seemed slightly repetitive so I'd double check for that. But overall I didn't notice a ton of spelling or grammatical errors. 2. Verifiable with no original research: Make sure you check on the formatting in your references section. A couple of the sources are still only url links rather than presented in the citation format provided by Wikipedia. Is there a way the information in the treatment section could be presented without the explicit references to the original research by Pareja and Milanliuglu? Maybe creating a summary of the treatments most commonly used with CPH and using the references as citations for your information would be more appropriate for a Wikipedia article. 3. Broad in coverage: I noticed you mentioned in the note to reviewers that there are no known causes of CPH, maybe try to mention that more explicitly in the article? That might go well in the section on diagnosis or even in the symptoms section. Also, another thing to watch out for, I think Dr. M's rubric included a requirement for at least 10 paragraphs in the article, so if possible expanding on a section or two would be a good idea. But overall, it seemed like with the limited amount of research on the topic as a group you creating sections that appropriately cover the information you knew. 4. Neural: You guys did a good job at remaining neutral throughout the article. Based on the limited secondary articles/ research sources available it seemed like the information was presented in a non-bias way. Even with the direct reference to treatment results, it didn't seem like you were supporting one opinion more than the other. 6. Illustrated: There aren't any illustrations included with the article yet. Perhaps include a picture of the areas of the brain where the patients experience the most pain? Or some sort of illustration of the drugs most commonly used for treatment? Check out the Wikicommons and see what's around, if nothing specifically relevant shows up even a simple image of the brain could be helpful in the leading paragraph.

Source verification: The source I review was: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1142296-overview#a0101 (it's currently the second source in the references section, author: Manish Singh) It seems like this article qualifies as a secondary source based on the fact it summarizes information gained from multiple other researchers. There were a couple places in this article that seemed to be worded very similarly to your article, just something to watch out for. This source was only used in the history section, the information you included summarized that section of the source well, however I think there is an opportunity to use the other information provided in this source to expand on other areas of your article. (Especially, if you are looking to increase to 10 full paragraphs.) For example, the etiology section speaks to potential causes of the disease (or at least the areas that are believed to affect the disease). This includes the section on "trigeminal, sympathetic and parasympathetic involvement". Also, the physical examinations section under presentation provides some useful information that could be used to expand on your diagnosis section. Finally, the medication section had some interesting info on treatments most often used for CPH. And this would give you some addition information outside of the primary resources you have now.

I hope you find some of these comments helpful. It's difficult to write an entire article on a topic with very little information available, and I think you guys did well. Overall, this is a good article! Syeager.93 (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Syeager.93 - Thank you for taking the time to review our article, we really appreciate it. We took your suggestion and added more links to Wikipedia articles throughout the page, especially to scientific terms in the "Diagnosis" section. We looked over the article several times and fixed the grammatical errors and made the article more readable. We also fixed the formatting in the reference section regarding the websites and books used. We decided to keep the information based on the original research done by Pareja and Milanliuglu in the "Treatments" section because it explained how effectively topiramate works in the patients they studied, rather than simply stating that topiramate works. We included a section on secondary causes explicitly in the article, like you recommended. This section along with the "Comparison to Cluster Headaches" section also add more to the article's length without adding unneccessary details. We also added an image in the "Diagnosis" section showing where the facial nerve is located, although CPH is not caused by damage to that nerve. We reworded the "History" section based on your recommendation. Since your revision, the article appears to have exceeded the ten paragraph minimum. Thank you for your comment, we found them extremely helpful. Marq808, D23sunn, Umm517 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #1

Overall I think you did a good job with this article. I could see that it may have been difficult to talk about this topic and find a good amount of information on it. A few things I could see you improving. 1. Maybe link a few more topics just to help beef up the article especially for those who really are trying to learn about the disease. For instance if possible I would link "Cluster Headache" "Indometacin" "IHS." 2. The treatment section could be elaborated on-how exactly did they test the drug verse the stats from the results. 3. If possible, if you had a "Causes" section I think that would really help the article. I could see that this may be hard to do though. Good job overall!8466jacoba (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, for some reason it says that you have no sources? Not sure why that is. 8466jacoba (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

8466jacoba - Thanks for your review. We added more interwiki links based on your suggestions and a wiktionary link as well. In the treatment section we also talked extensively about how the drug was applied. We added a Possible Causes section per your recommendation as well. After you pointed out that our article was saying we didn't have any sources we were also able to figure out how to fix that too! Thanks for your suggestions and review! We really appreciate that you read the article! - Marq808, Umm517, and D23sunn (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, it is a well written article despite the limitations of lack of information. I think you give the reader a good knowledge of what chronic paroxysmal hemicrania is, without being to broad. I would add more hyperlinks to the article, and possibly some images. If there are not a lot of options for images, maybe one representing the area that is being affected would be good. Good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNEURO (talk • contribs) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

JNEURO- Thanks for taking the time to read and leave some comments about our article. We added a lot more Wikipedia links throughout the page, we also added an image in the "Diagnosis" section illustrating where the temporal branch of the facial nerve is; highlighting were the pain usually occurs. Thanks again for your review. D23sunn, Marq808, Umm517 (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review- I believe that the flow of your information is all good and all the information seems relevant based on the amount of information available. The only thing I feel that is missing is the amount of hyperlinks since I only counted a few of them when reading through. Also I am not sure if maybe there are no images regarding this topic, but that is the only other thing I noticed which was missing. Other than those issues, the article was good and I liked the way you split the information. 134.48.160.175 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)karora19

karora19- Thank you for your comments about the article! We went through the article and added a lot more links on the confusing and scientific terms used throughout the page. It was difficult finding a related and useable image, but I think that we found one and added it to the "Diagnosis" section showing where the facial nerve is located. Once again, thanks for taking the time to read through our article. D23sunn, Marq808, Umm517 (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well written- This page is extremely well written! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the whole page, and I learned something new! The format of the page is easy to follow. I think your contents are broken up well, and put in the perfect order. The page was extremely easy to comprehend, and anyone reading the page would be able to understand it. That being said, I think that in some parts it becomes almost too colloquial, and strays away from a more professional, scientific page. This can be hard, though, as there is a fine line between making it easy to understand and too easy, so much so that it sounds like it was written without sources. One other small part I would fix would be under the diagnosis setting. You have a list of criteria a patient has to have in order for their disorder to seem chronic. I would recommend changing this to bullet points, and leaving the next indented section under number two numbered. Either way, having two sets of numbered criteria is a little confusing. One last thing that I would fix would be your intro for the disease. I think that you go into a little too much detail, and I would save some of that information for the actual sections themselves.
2. Verifiable with no original research- You have a very good mix of primary and secondary sources. The secondary source I reviewed was http://www.migrainetrust.org/research-article-paroxysmal-hemicrania-2010-12586. This is an extremely good secondary source, as it has multiple primary sources. It also appears as if you only used this source once to cite a sentence or two. However, a ton of the same information from this source appears multiple times throughout your page. This is good, as it makes your information more credible because more than one source uses the same data. This source on Paroxysmal hemicrania is an excellent secondary source, and your group used it well.
3. Broad in coverage- In your note to reviewers, you said that there is not a great deal of information available on your disease. However, you have nine sources, and the source I reviewed alone used a whooping thirty sources! I would have to disagree with your statement on a lack of information. Be that as it may, a more correct statement would be that there is not a lot of information on certain parts of your syndrome, such as causes. Each section your group did cover had a good deal of information in it.
4. Neutral- Your page does appear to be neutral. However, there are a few statements written that I would advise you to revise, as they sould as if they are your own opinion, and not from a reliable source. For example, in the Epidemiology section, in the third sentence, I would take out “but it could be even rarer”. This appears to be your own opinion, as it is not cited, and it does not sound very professional.
6. Illustrated- I noticed you do not have any images at all. One relatively easy way of adding a picture can be to show where exactly in the brain the places of pain occur. In my group, one of my partners was easily able to find a diagram of where our disease occurs through Wikipedia Commons. --Thatsomaven (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thatsomaven -Thanks for your review! We changed the numbering to bullet points based off your suggestion, and rewrote some sections to make them appear more encyclopedic. Unfortunately, we were unable to properly number the subsection as you suggested due to errors with Wikipedia's coding. If you know how to properly list it, please let us know!

We were initially discouraged about the lack of information on causes, because when writing an article about a disease, that is usually what you want to find out about. However, we were able to cover a broad array of information on CPH and included a new section on possible secondary causes. While there were a fair amount of sources, they were mostly primary and we were hesitant about using because we had already included two primary sources, particularly in the treatment section.

We removed our opinionated statements and made sure our article displayed neutrality and professionalism. We also added an image to the diagnosis section showing the temporal branch of the facial nerve, highlighting the general area where pain is found in CPH.

Thank you so much for helping us to make our article better! We really appreciate the concern you provided in your critiques. D23sunn, Umm517, and Marq808 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall the article is written very well. It is very informative about the disorder. There are two things I would say need to be added in order to improve the article. I would add an image and many more hyperlinks throughout the article. The hyperlinks will help the reader understand the more medical terms used in the article. --Tgmarquette (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tgmarquette -Thanks for the review! We added a lot more hyperlinks to help readers understand the medical terms we used throughout the article. We also added, as per your suggestion, an image showing where pain caused by CPH is felt in the head. We hope you enjoyed reading our article and thanks again for your help in making it better! D23sunn, Umm517 and Marq808 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)