Talk:Dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumour

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): Edavis95, SinghM154, Kmorun.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review E torres97 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

In the risk factors section, I found it difficult to understand what you were attempting to state. From my point of view, it seems that the second and third sentences are contradictory. As well as this, I believe there is a typo in the Nonspecific section of Pathogensis, either this or the ordering of the words make it difficult to understand what is being said.

In the outcomes section, there is a mention of the tumor at times being malignant, but in the previous paragraphs a key point of identification is that the tumor is benign. I recommend diving into this in the Pathogensis section instead of surprising the reader with this information in the outcomes section.

The images included are a nice touch to the article.

For the Epidetmology section, if it is possible. Stating a number of people affected would be better then saying .6 percent. It is difficult to image what .6 percent of a population is.

I would recommend combining or expanding the Classifications, characteristics, and risk factors sections, but I feel that combining would be the best option. They are a bit lacking indivudlaly, but together they can build off each other and provide a good flow to the article.

Regarding sources, for the first source captioned as number 1. When used in the first section, I am unsure how you were able to retrieve the informaion that the tumor is classified as benign. Although, it is correctly utilized in the Pathogensis section.

Overall, well written, neutral, and broad article with a strongly written Treatment section in particular. This article overall accomplishes what was meant to be done and that is give a reader a peak into the disease. Although as mentioned above, there are points that need to be refined.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by E torres97 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Great points! For your remark on classification of the tumor as benign, if you note in the abstract, you can see that article states that the DNTs are benign. We took into consideration of combining the three sections - Classification, Characteristics, and Risk Factors, into one section, with the latter two as subheadings. Risk Factors was actually combined with the Epidemiology section, and renamed into Epidemiology. We were not able to find exact numbers for the amount of people affected, primarily because this is quite a rare disease, so we have decided to stick the percentages. Thank you for the review!Edavis95 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Good article. It would be interesting to see further how this tumor affects children compared to adults. Also, a couple of the sections are kind of short and could be expanded upon or even added together, if possible. -Theresa Santos TSantos (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

First of all, I really liked the pictures that were added to the page. I liked being able to picture more clearly what I was reading about. However, the characteristics section was a little confusing to me. It seemed like a lot of facts were all over the place, so I would consider revising that section and maybe adding more symptoms. Also, in the risk factor section I would try to be more specific when you are talking about the tumor. When it is a new section I would restate the proper name of the tumor so the reader knows you are not talking about a new tumor. I would also consider revising the last sentence in that section. In the pathogenesis section, the first sentence of the last paragraph did not make sense, but I did like the explanation of the 3 subunits. In the first part of the diagnosis section, I think you can combine the two paragraphs so it flows better and I think a few words are missing in the last sentence. I also think some more words could be highlighted within the article so a reader can easily look up a word they do not understand. Overall I thought it was a very interesting article, I would just revise some areas to make them clearer and to have them flow more throughout the article. I reviewed source 5 and it was properly cited and the source said what the authors said it did. Sydneym21 (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Sydney, for your review! In regards to the Risk Factor section being confusing, you were completely correct. In fact, we completely overhauled it and work its facts in the the section on epidemiology, and we believe it to be easier and more helped for readers. We believed the diagnosis section should not have the paragraphs combined because we feel it would become less structured if done so. Other than that, we followed your contributions and feel the article has greatly improved.Edavis95 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

To first off address the overall article, I think it is very well done, but there’s always room for improvement in terms of organization. It is well written and the information is sensibly presented with links to terms that may be advanced and have their own wiki-pages. One improvement might be briefly explaining what some terms mean, ex. a benign tumor, or a non-metastasizing tumor, etc. This could be done for epilepsy, temporal/parietal lobes, chemotherapy, as some readers of the article will be less scientific-minded and more simpleton individuals.

The information is verifiable and doesn’t present original research. I reviewed source 3 (Komori 2013) to find the information appropriately derived about epilepsy, the DNT/oligodendrogliom relationship, and subclass variance among the scientific community. The article is broad and covers many areas (if not all) of the DNTs. Lastly, the article is appropriately neutral and does not provide any medical advice or insinuations of self-diagnosable medical knowledge. One area you could further develop if you wanted as the histological characterization of the tumor, which the 3rd source goes into much detail on including differentiation of the neuronal/glial cell types and how this affects nodularity (otherwise your Pathogenesis question is relatively developed already).

The illustrations positively contribute to the article and accurately depict what one would be seeking in terms of histology and imaging. There aren’t many other forms of illustrations that are applicable to the DNT topic, so well done.

On a closing note, I was thinking the “History” category should maybe be listed as the first category rather than the last. Also, the “Characteristics”, “Risk Factors”, and “Epidemiology” sections felt very similar to me, so I believe you could combine them if you wanted, but it is not necessary for the article’s success. Great job! Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleyjude1313 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bradley for your insight. We looked into the feedback and would like to say that we actually had entered hyperlinks for all of the stated terminologies. We figured it would be better if readers had easy access to the terms that they did not understand via another wiki-page. This way, they would get more information out of it rather than a few words that may still the readers confused. The combining of the sections was a great idea. This way, it feels more organized and concise, and there is less overlapping between information. We also combined two other sections and completely removed Risk Factors (now Epidemiology) with feedback from another review as well. Finally, we also liked your idea of moving the history section to the top, and we truly believe it now looks and feels better to read.Edavis95 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review CameronLangeMU (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to first state that the pictures were a great illustration of the topic at hand for the article. I would recommend, however, to describe a little bit in detail or give a little bit more of a descriptive detail to each picture explaining what is actually going on in the picture.

Under Classifications, there are a lot of acronyms there are not fully explained in the context. Either linking hyperlinks or explaining what each one means, such as "WHO" in the classification section, would help illustrate a better overall picture for the reader. Under characteristics, I believe one could go more into depth about the topic and how these "characteristics" are found or studied.

The diagnosis and treatment sections do a very good job at explaining treatment options and diagnosis. One recommendation is to go over grammar and punctuation. There seems to be a lot of run on sentences in these two sections, which gives a perspective that someone else wrote these sections compared to the rest of the article. I know our professor wanted us to make the article seem like that it was like one person had wrote it. Just a few grammar issues, if fixed, would go a long way in order to make it seem that only one person had wrote it.

As for an article, I looked into the second reference on the page, titled Dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor, Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine. Right of the bat, it seemed like the title fit the topic. Doing more research on the topic, and the research article, it seemed like an excellent source for the paper. Not only was it cited correctly, but the journal article explained their critical trials and what that found in order to explain their results and prove their point.

Overall, I thought that the article was well written. With a few extra additions and reviewing grammatical errors, the article would be excellent.

Thank you, Cameron for your review. We went ahead and changed WHO to be hyperlinked, as well as expanded the acronym for readers. It should have been an obvious change from the start! We also fixed many grammatical and spelling errors, there should be close to zero now.Edavis95 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I enjoyed the usage of illustrations and pictures and helps give a better understanding. I'm not sure how much was previously on this page, but there is a lot of information that gives the reader a good understanding of this tumor. Overall well written, however be more specific on technical terms so there is no confusion. --Ewiegand (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

You guys have a very nice article. The format really gives a great break down of DNT and allows the article to flow, which makes it a lot easier for the readers to comprehend. I did not know what DNT was, nor did I know any characteristics about it so was fun learning about it.AKon10 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The images on this article are a great touch. In the other articles I have reviewed they have not presented any images. Having this aspect is a nice visual stimulation for the article that can get the reader interested in the topic once they open up the page. A suggestion I would make would be to expand on the characteristics section and possibly make it a signs and symptoms category instead. If you were to make this change I would then place the section after the risk factors section. By having a interlude into who is at risk to be affected pressing onto what the tumors actually do to the human body would make logical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilbertoenriquez (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review MecciaC0410

Overall, you guys have a really good article. I liked the use of the pictures and I thought it was organized well. My main suggestion would be to look at the treatment section again. You say that chemo and radiation are not needed, since the tumor is usually benign. I would be careful with your wording there, it currently sounds like in all cases the treatment option would be surgery, no chemo or radiation would be used and there will be no side effects. I think you might want to get more general, maybe say that this is a common course of treatment and common results just so it is alittle more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MecciaC0410 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC) MecciaC0410 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I think your article was organized nicely and I think the images you have included are effective and helpful. I would recommend linking a few more things, such as "WHO" and "glioneuronal tumors" at the beginning. I would also be interested to know some more specific numbers, especially in the Risk Factors and Diagnosis section. In the Pathogenesis section, did you mean that each of those subunits are found in different parts of each tumor (simple, complex, nonspecific)? Or did you mean that those are different whole kinds of tumors that have been found and identified? An overall suggestion I would make is to be sure to include some more of the negative or not as positive aspects of DNT. I would mention some of the more severe consequences and cases, so as not to brush off the potential serious risks to this disease and potentially give people reading the article a false sense that DMT is able to be fixed more often than perhaps it actually is. EKallsen (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)