Talk:Cranio-lenticulo-sutural dysplasia

note

This stub page is being edited for a project in Marquette's undergraduate neurobiology course. The article will be complete on April 24, 2014. Awesomepossum12 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This disease is pretty rare, first found only as a recessive gene in 4 kids with a common beduin ancestor in saudi arabia. Research was mainly done because it was thought to provide insight into other disease that are similar, but possibly more widespread. The amount of secondary sources is limited, however there is research on the disease done mostly by the same person, Simeon Boyadjiev , M.D. The disease is a missense mutation that affects endoplasmic reticulum to golgi trafficking. Awesomepossum12 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review: Overall, this article includes great information about the disease. It provides a good understanding about the causes and effects of the disease. However, in some instances, the wording can be unclear and confusing. Also, a main recommendation is to add proper citations for your references. Besides one source, it seems like you only have the links for the articles pasted in the "reference" section. I would recommend changing these references into the correct format. Also, there needs to be in-text citations for the information which you have taken from other articles. There is only one in-text citation in the article. These in-text citations can easily be added once you make proper citations for each reference. Furthermore, there is no content under the "History" section. I would recommend either adding information to this section or just deleting it. I like the picture of the chromosome, however, it would be good if it had a caption. The "inherited disorders of trafficking/ vesicular transport proteins" reference/classification box at the bottom of the article is really great. The article has great substance, however, the edits mentioned above would really enhance it. Overall, really nice good! Smorrissey7 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help! We tried to add more in-text citations to link specifics to articles. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review: 1. Well written: Overall, the headings of the article seem to flow in logical order. However, I would suggest either adding some information to the history section or completely erasing that section. I also found a few minor typos: the number 7 at the end of the introduction, discovery section could be in paragraph form, missing superscript citation in second bullet point, incomplete first sentence of the prognosis section, the first sentence of the treatment section could use rewording, and lastly the references section needs to be put in proper Wikipedia format. The first reference appears to be correct, so putting the links in that same format would fix the references issues. I would also recommend using more sources within your article. I could only find two sources within the article, we are required to use at least five sources. 2: Verifiable with no original research: Since this is not a popular topic, it seems that you only used one or two sources, which appear to be primary reviews. I was a bit confused by which articles you were citing for which information as the references are unclear. The article that did use a superscript reference (Boyadjiev, 2006) was a primary source, however it appears that there is not much other literature available. I think you did a very good job keeping the article to general conclusions made by the article, instead of using the specific research data presented in this experiment. Where did you get the rest of your information from? But great job not using any specific research data from the articles. 3: Broad in coverage: With the small amount of literature on this topic, I think you did a great job covering all of the important aspects of the disease. You explained how it happens, why it happens, and what happens, which are the key factors that people would be interested in learning about. Including the prognosis, frequency and treatment really gave your article a broad spectrum of information. 4: Neutral: I think you did a very good job explaining just the facts. It does not appear that you were swayed by any primary research bias. I think the only possible bias could occur in the current research section about the zebrafish because it was done by one set of experimenters (I assume because there aren’t any references). If available, explaining another researchers experiment could help decrease any bias. 5: Illustrated: I really like that the article contains the chromosome picture. However, I have no idea what it means. I would recommend adding a caption on the picture and a brief explanation about how it relates to the article topic. Also, you could include a picture of an extended endoplasmic reticulum or a picture of a symptom of the disease. Source: By Boyadjiev in 2006, titled :Cranio-lenticulo-sutural dysplasia is caused by a SEC23A mutation leading to abnormal endoplasmic-reticulum-to-Golgi trafficking.” As briefly mentioned previously, I do not think this source was cited correctly. I think the information used from the source was very relevant, however, I think more citing is required. Although this is not a secondary source, due to the lack of information on this topic, I think you used the information from this article to the best of your ability to present the information in an unbiased manner. The purpose of the Boyadjiev article was applied throughout the Wikipedia article. The findings found in the article are consistent with the statements in the Wikipedia article. All of the main points in Boyadijev’s article are expressed throughout this Wikipedia article. There is not much more that can be added from this article without adding in specific research data. Overall, very good start! KPhillips13 (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, we are still in the process of fine tuning our references section and making sure it all connects, as for the picture, we talked to the wikipedia guy for our class and he said that we couldn't use any pictures from the article without a copyright and there really aren't any good pictures of the kind of distention that occurs with this disease anywhere in wikimedia. We shall fix the errors you mentioned otherwise Awesomepossum12 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review: Good article, with two points to look at. The first is, as has previously been mentioned, the references came out odd and aren't footnoted at all. The second is in the introduction: "The disease causes a significant dilation of fibroblasts of the endoplasmic reticulum in the host with CLSD." That sentence doesn't make sense as is, Endoplasmic reticulum and fibroblasts should be swapped. There are a few other parts that are worded a bit oddly, such as the first section of the treatment section, but otherwise it looked good to me. Zxdsqw (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help. We went through and changed some of the article's wording. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review. This article is overall very informative and puts forth good information. The only things I would recommend taking a look at would be some of the wording in your article to include: an incomplete first sentence of the prognosis section, confusing first sentence of the treatment section. I also noticed a random number 7 at the end of your introduction paragraph. The reference scheme needs some work, but I see that you are working on that now. Should be a nicely finished article!Sheldon92 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help. We did some editing based on your recommendation. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review: Well-written- The content of the article is very well written, presented very clearly, and respects all copyright laws. The format of the article also follows the manual of style guidelines. There are some grammatical errors in the page and other small factors that can be changed to improve the article. “Pathophysiology” and “Mechanism” sections were explained really well and very clearly. The “Classification” section can be incorporated into the introduction of the article and a separate section for this information is not needed. If keeping this section separate from the introduction can be argued, placing it higher up on the page and closer to the introduction would be better. The “Signs & Symptoms” section is a good list and the explanations in the parentheses, along with linked bullet points were very helpful and organized. The word “Caucasian” was used a couple times throughout the article and should be capitalized. At the end of the introduction section, there seems to be a typo (.7). In the “Discovery” section, the APA citation (Boyadjiev, 1193) should be changed to the Wikipedia citing format using footnotes and the reference list. Also, the second to last sentence in this section is a run-on sentence. In the “Prognosis” section, it would be helpful to include a sentence or a link explaining what symptomatic means. Another option would be to state in parentheses that it is further explained in the “Treatment” section. The first sentence in this section can also be a little more professionally stated. In the “Treatment” section, it would be more coherent if it were worded like this: “This disease is still in the early stages of discovery and being fully understood. Because it is an entirely genetic disorder, treatment….” In the “Frequency” section, it would be helpful to include a link to “fontanel” and the order of the bullet points can be rearranged to group related points closer together. The last bullet point can be moved up on the list to be the third bullet point. In the “Current research” section, it is optional to add a link for “postcoracoid processes” as it could be helpful in picturing where it is anatomically located. Lastly, “neurocranial” is spelled incorrectly in this section.
Verifiable- The article is well cited and research was all supported with sources. No original research is included in the article. The author also did a good job not using data and statistics from the research articles, keeping the summary style of a Wikipedia article.
Broad in its coverage- The article is a good overview on the disease. It stayed focused within each subsection and did not go into unnecessary detail. However, some facts were restated in different sections of the article.
Neutral- The article presents the disease clearly without bias. The points made about the research that was done or is currently being done on the disease is well supported by sources and data.
Illustrated- The illustration in the “Mechanism” section of the article was great to help visualize the microscopic concepts and it was relevant to the section and the overall topic being discussed. The image is also appropriately tagged and found from Wikipedia Commons.
I selected to look into the second source under the reference list and the information stated in the “Signs & Symptoms” is correctly included in the article from the source. It is a secondary source and it is also correctly cited.--Mchan19 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help. We went through and did some grammatical editing based on your recommendations. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well Written- I think you guys did a really nice job explaining what the disease is and how it arises. I also liked the layout of the page and the bullet points in the symptoms section made it easier to read. I think that in the introduction you could maybe cut it back to a few sentences and put some of the information in there in the other sections so as to add more body to the page. The discovery part seems a little confusing- maybe clear this up for the reader? It seems like a long run on sentence, though I understand it is hard to put genetics into words... maybe add some notations like the gene and the recessive mutation on the gene or show the box where the crosses are done? A sort of diagram maybe? Signs and symptoms portion looks great. Prognosis: I would take out the word "good", it does nothing for the tone of the article and it doesn't lend much to the actual prognosis. Either elaborate on that or take it out. You could add some statistics to that section as well, or recovery percentages or facts or anything really. Treatment section seems fair. Not much you can really say if not much is known about that. For the physiology part I would recommend cutting from your intro section and adding it to this part. Could be expanded upon easily in that manner. Or maybe combine physiology and mechanism? Not sure.. just as thought. You guys would know better about the importance of where to draw the line than me. Classification/ Frequency looks good! Current research looks good as well, I assume there's not too much you can say because this is a disease that is not too well known. There is a random 7 notation in the intro though that should be taken care of that others mentioned. 2. Verifiable with no original research: Sources are verified. Format looks good, well cited and easy to navigate. No original research was present so that checks out as well. 3. Broad In Coverage- Article covers a nice range of topics within the disease- nothing too far reaching- and hits all the major points well. I think like I said above that some parts could be expanded upon but everything that needs to be there is definitely there- no significant gaps missing. 4. Neutral- Yes, neutral. No bias. All is done well here. 5. Illustration: I think the illustration enhanced the article for sure, however I hardly saw it when i scrolled down, any way to move it to a more visible central area? Perhaps make it bigger? Also, could use just a tad bit more explanation if possible. Source: I looked under "symptoms of Craniolenticulosutural.." Information checks out as far as I can see, for example the symptoms section of the article matches well with the info here. This info seems basic and as far as I can tell it was integrated nicely. Info checks out for the source citing.

I think over all it is really well done for a 1st posting- there is info to be added but that's normal and I think with a few touch ups it's going to be a great finished piece. Nice job!

Mady Martin Mady mads (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC) (Mady mads (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

Response Thank you for your help! We did some editing of the intro section based on your recommendations. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article was well done. It is clear that there isn't much information out there due to the disorders recent discovery, but I think you managed to summarize everything here. There are a few grammar mistakes here and there, and the prognosis section could use a little editing, but otherwise it is well done. I liked that you included a list of all of the signs and symptom using bullet points, it makes the list much easier to read. Good job. LJ112358 (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you, we did some further editing of the bulleted list to make it easier to read. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article is well written and I admire it's structure. I can tell that there isn't a lot of information out there yet by the technical language that is used and it can be hard to write and format information properly. As far as someone being able to read this from a non-science background I can imagine it to be difficult but in the future as more information is released about this topic the ideas can be summarized and organized more effectively. The only thing I have a question on is where you placed the name of the exact chromosome, it seems as though it should belong on the side with the OMIM and MeSH terms because of the specificity of it's name and the lack of people that would know what the '14q13-q21' chromosome is. Let me know what you think about that! Jammin1993 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help. We reworded the chromosome sentence to make more sense based on your recommendation. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

1) Well written- This article has many strong points such the ability to clearly articulate the signs and symptoms, which is quite a 'meaty' part to add to this article. The abundance of links provides a clearer understanding of what some of the unfamiliar terminology the article is referring to, which was appreciated when reading the article! Starting from the synopsis-it was very well written. It was clear, informative, but also summarized the important aspects of the disease and provided the necessary crucial information to be obtained from the article. Like I previously stated, the signs and symptoms was a strong point in this article. One thing I just want to clarify, is the disease both congenital and acquired after birth? Or just congenital? As far as the prognosis goes, the first sentence, "Good, and treatment is symptomatic", should be reworded and elaborated. This is quite vague, and there should be a greater explanation of this in more detail. For the treatment section, it was explained well. I respect the fact that this is a very rare disease, but I thought for the amount of information, it provided the right information. Pathophysiology was very informative, however I would like to see more of an explanation of how the procedure was carried out to come to the conclusion of this information; the experiment used and set up to come to this. Mechanism looks good, however, I feel as though classification should be moved to one of the first sections in the article. It seems like it appears late in the article, however, that's trivial, and if you all prefer it to be like that-that's fine. The following sections such as mechanism and frequency look good. I am slightly confused about the chart at the end of the article, because there really isn't a caption or explanation of it, and it's quite confusing when trying to interpret it. On the other hand-I liked the visual image you posted in your article. Another suggestion I would make is to reorganize the reference section. I'm confused about the bibliography section on its own under the reference section. This should be formatted correctly for the final version of the article with the in-text citations used where you take information form the articles. Other than those suggestions, it looks pretty good! 2)Verifiable with no original research- Sources check out! I would recommend finding any other reputable sources to help your article. Again, I am aware that this is a rare disease, I feel as though there could be a few better ones out there yet. The article I verified was "Genetic mutation identified as cause of cranio-lenticulo-sutural dysplasia". It corresponds to the information in your article! This article is a secondary source and is cited correctly. 3)Broad in coverage- This was fairly broad considering the disease being as rare as it is. You all had quite a few sections and seemed to have informative paragraphs, and that's the most important aspect. 4)Neutral- Yes, this article was neutral. There were no biases detected! 5)Illustration- The picture and the table enhanced your article. As I stated before, it would be beneficial to add some sort of caption to your table that briefly describes what it's showing for clarification purposes.

Good start to your article :). HawksHockey21 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help. We reworded the treatment section to make it a little more clear based on your recommendations. We also added a caption to our picture. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Even though your topic inherently covered some difficult topics, your article made it very easy to understand and organized in a way that made it simple to navigate. I especially like the bullet-point approach to the Symptoms section. The Classification section, however, would probably do better in sentence or paragraph form. Overall, everything looks clean and professional. Grat job! AleksNemo (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your help and recommendations! SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Over all very nice article. It is very well written and the page formatting looks spectacular. The use of links is a really nice way to give the reader all information without going off on a tangent in the article. You guys did a great job in choosing what needed a link and it works very well. One small suggestion is that in the Prognosis section, the word “good” doesn’t sound very professional. I suggest just saying something like “The treatment of this disease is highly favorable and has proven to work well to this day.” Again great job, I enjoyed reading the article as it was short, sweet and to the point. 7243HODGSOZ (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your recommendations! We reworded the prognosis section to make it more clear. SamSchultz1 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)