Talk:Migraine/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this! Reading it answered one of my long-standing questions. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

more than 10%; 90 percent - should % or percent consistently - the article is inconsistent in this respect.

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is very interesting but a little hard to follow. I assume that the sections are following a formula for medical articles. I have some comments that may or may not be relevant.

Follows WP:MEDMOS yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

neurovascular disorder - what is this (perhaps the explanation is too technical for this article)

a disorder that involves nerves and blood vessels Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why is Abdominal migraine discussed under "Signs and symptoms"?

This is another presumed presentation of migraine headaches along with cyclical vomiting syndrome. I guess we could move it to the section on diagnosis as it really is uncommon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basilar migraine redirects to migraine so what is a basilar migraine?

Added further details Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They do run in families in about two-thirds of cases" - doesn't seem like encyclopedic language

Fixed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Migraines may be induced by triggers, with some reporting it as an influence in a minority of cases[5] and others the majority." - some people or some research review articles?

Both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"spreading depression of Leão" - what is Leão?

Someones name Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Trepanation, the deliberate drilling of holes into a skull, was practiced as early as 7,000 BCE." - what is the relevance, as it's only mentioned at the end of the paragraph that William Harvey recommended it as a treatment in the 17th century. - the image, though nice, seems irrelevant and off topic -

This is a discussion of the early treatments of migraine headaches. We could go into more depth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "Research" section so sparse? Is that all that's being researched? Shouldn't possible treatments be under "Management"/Treatment?

I never put possible treatments under treatment. These are typically not available. Yes more research is being done but it is only a GA and research is not really my area of interest. I am more interested in what is done now :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under diagnosis, it says that if a person has two attacks (or more) with aura, it is diagnosed as migraine. Then it says "If someone experiences two of the following: photophobia, nausea, or inability to work / study for a day the diagnosis is more likely.[57] In those with four out of five of the following: pulsating headache, duration of 4–72 hours, pain on one side of the head, nausea, or symptoms that interfere with the person's life, the probability that this is a migraine is 92%.[11] In those with less than three of these symptoms the probability is 17%." - what is the "ultimate" test of what a migraine is? (or whether a person is correctly diagnosed?)

The IHS criteria are the ultimate method of diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on a very informative article. (I've made a few edits that you're free to change.[1]) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I will try to address any remaining when I get home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations of visual migraine aura

Example of a scintillating scotoma aura with each dot or line flickering.

The reference Exploring the visual hallucinations of migraine aura by Schott accurately depicts the phosphene (expanding fortification spectrum) and featureless (not black) trailing scotoma. But the illustrations showing a brown and yellow Roman building with a dark area or fortification spectrum with no scotoma are inaccurate. The illustration of the phosphene against an ocean background is more accurate than the Roman building illustration. The phosphene appears as a bright (not dark) flickering patch that totally replaces the details of an expanding area of the background image. Greensburger (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That image is blurry. We need a better one. It does not look like the ones in the ref you link [2] We could use the images in this document as they are from 1902. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]