Jump to content

Talk:Parkinson's disease/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Social impact

@Hortur0 what percentage of Parkinson’s patients does that refer to? I ask because it certainly doesn’t apply to me but the way you word it makes it look as though it should. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorted by having it say "as it progresses". Doug Weller talk 11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Social interaction

I have added a working link to the source. I'm not sure "Symptoms such as shaking, hallucinating, slurring speech, and being off balance can make the public feel awkward. Some people are unaware of Parkinson's and they don't know how to interact when it comes to communicating with a Parkinson's patient" reflects the article sufficiently or is worded as well as it could be. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have corrected the citation per WP:CITEVAR; also note that when a PMC is provided, it automatically populates the URL field so a duplicate URL is not needed.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia I didn't know that, always learning something new here. Thanks also for greatly improving the wording of that section. I knew it needed more work but lacked the energy to try. Plus I'm missing a finger which has decided to lock up. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The best way to get a clean citation for this article is to just plug the PMID in to this citation filler tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Life expectancy

  • Wolff A, Schumacher NU, Pürner D, Machetanz G, Demleitner AF, Feneberg E, Hagemeier M, Lingor P (June 2023). "Parkinson's disease therapy: what lies ahead?". J Neural Transm (Vienna). 130 (6): 793–820. doi:10.1007/s00702-023-02641-6. PMC 10199869. PMID 37147404.
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7840238/
  • https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353802020301954

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nee study shows Tai Chi good for Parkinson’s

[2]. No way do I have time for this! Doug Weller talk 19:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think most exercise would help; but yes it takes time. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
A primary study on one intervention won't be very helpful for this article, but I know there are plenty of secondary reviews in this territory, as I came across them when I was writing Dementia with Lewy bodies#Other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Images

... are getting wacky in here. File:Тремор.gif is not a tremor at rest, and based on the sourcing on the image file, we can't even be certain this is PD. Also, captions are supposed to be succinct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is the article being filled with distracting and purely decorative images ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The two images here are purely decorative and add nothing to reader understanding ... jarring because two images so different in style are placed side-by-side, and overloading an article with decorative images simply detracts from the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

IMHO the images serve to draw more attention to the less well-known potential causes of PD. I do agree that placing two images that are so different in style side-by-side is strange. Maybe the carbon disulfide one is better put together with another image that shows the spraying of pesticides like paraquat? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Causes cited to 2004

  • Statistically significant geographical clusters of Parkinson's cases have been reported, suggesting a common environmental cause that is either chemical or infectious.[better source needed] PMID 15262735

Why is text cited to a 2004 primary study being added? It's 2023; if this information can't be found in a recent secondary review (which it probably can), it's UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That was my bad. I haven't contributed significantly to any science articles yet. So the gold standard is recent review articles? Ar individual research studies to be avoided altogether? Thanks, ~ HAL333 18:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thx, HAL333; there are some good/valid uses of older or primary studies, but in a condition as well researched as PD, it would be rare for that to happen here. The way to rewrite this article is to get hold of the most recent secondary reviews and do a top-to-bottom rewrite. To familiarize yourself with the standards, I can recommend looking over the very similar dementia with Lewy bodies (written by moi :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Or have a look at the 2011 featured version of this article; although now dates in some parts, it does give a very good idea of what this article should end up looking like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Some parts of the 2011 version are better than the current one. Seems that some of the good information has been removed since then. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes ... some of the wording could be restored with citations to newer sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. I plan on completely re-writing and updating the "Research" section soon, and will stick to review papers. ~ HAL333 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Awesome ... some info:
I know you know how it's done :) By the way, the new thinking at WP:FAC is that page numbers or section headings should be given also on journal sources. You can see the latest medical FAs at Buruli ulcer, [complete blood count]], dementia with Lewy bodies (a close match for this topic), lung cancer, menstrual cycle, and Ajpolino is now at work on prostate cancer. If you hew closely to the latest and highest quality secondary sources, you're on the winning track. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
HAL333 this should be useful for rewriting research (I am noticing that part of what destroyed this once fine FA is editors knocking in their own favorite bits, without taking note of the most recent and highest quality MEDRS-compliant sources, and assigning DUE WEIGHT accordingly):
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks. I have finals over the next week, but immediately after I'll start chugging away. My goal is to see the whole article overhauled by maybe February. ~ HAL333 22:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Advocacy section

The advocacy orgs are self-cited; unless secondary sources mention their relevance, the content is UNDUE. (Secondary sources mentioning them should be sought, so they can be placed in context.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Trichloroethylene

Best I can tell, PMID 36938742 is the only review to mention the substance, and it's an article about the substance. Normally, per WP:UNDUE, I'd not place content in the lead unless it's mentioned in broad secondary reviews about the condition (PD) generally. How is this due in the lead if there's only one paper, and it's described as a hypothesis? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think it's very much due. TCE is one of the (if not the) most notable chemical risk factors for Parkinson's. We also have PMID 31996877, PMID 31733690, PMID 35914559, PMID 23220449 etc. ~ HAL333 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the keywords in her post are “broad secondary reviews about the condition”.
The health effects of TCE are gaining more and more attention though. [3] [4] [5]. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
PMID 31733690 works for me then ... it's a recent, broad secondary review .. although I'm wondering how it escaped my search ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
So just a passing mention of TCE (in the source) is OK? I thought it needs to be longer to warrant inclusion in the lead. Look like I was wrong ( again :p ) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the error was mine :) I can't understand why no other secondary reviews turned up in my search, so ... given that we do have broad reviews that do mention it, it can go in the lead (due weight) and content can be expanded ... tomorrow's a new day (I was out at a fascinating presentation by someone who had deep brain stimulation). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Sounds cool, enjoy! So how fascinating was it? Tell us more. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC);00:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Not on a technical level ... just one person telling his story of how it changed his life and gave him back his profession ... which caused me to feel shame that I haven't updated deep brain stimulation in about ... a decade ... I edited DBS mostly back when the benefits didn't outweigh the risks. And now DBS is so common ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know much about DBS. It’s not common here. It sounds like a good treatment though. Perhaps I should take some time to read our article. Must be expensive right? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Just have a quick glance at the article. Nothing about the cost, but the images look a bit scary to me. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Publication databases can be very annoying sometimes. (From my experience, literature reviews have two stages: 1) accumulating everything that the databases yield and 2) finding the dozens of cited articles therein that the database algorithms don't yield for whatever reason...) ~ HAL333 04:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
It's more likely that one of my settings was wrong, as I was trying to get out the door for the evening presentation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Dustfreeworld, I don't think I completely answered your question last night. When I searched on TCL reviews, my (faulty) search came up with only that one secondary review. It was strong enough to warrant one sentence in the article, but not the lead. Since many more sources are available, and since a broad secondary review also mentions it, I can't object to it being also in the lead. If we were looking at this article ever being restored to FA-level, then we might look even more closely at what belongs in the lead, but for now, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Sandy, I understand now. Thanks so much for the detail explanation! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing to governmental bodies

I have another question … I know that for disease like COPD, the GOLD report is used as source. Do we have something similar for PD? And, can sources like this be used as well? :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar at all with COPD or the GOLD report (it smells like advocacy, but I really don't know). Sources like those can be used, but I prefer going to the underlying sources whenever possible, because I don't see why add something to an article if not adding it to the best sources, particularly in a case like this when so many are available. The article needs years of special interest damage repaired, and that is best done by going to the most recent high-quality journals (we have the Lancet for example), and starting over. I don't find working on marginal content an enjoyable hobby ... but that's just my own preference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I do agree sources like the Lancet is great; but it’s not freely available ...
Yes there are many sources available ... the problem is too many ... and IMHO we probably only need a few that summarise the condition well ...
BTW in WP:MEDRS it says,
“Summarize scientific consensus
... Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported.”
And that’s why I’m asking ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I refer you again to Dementia with Lewy bodies#References; what I tend to do (to be sure I'm using the best sources, even if they aren't all freely available) is a) get the governmental guidelines up front by using them in the infobox (so the reader will encounter them first or high up in the source list), and b) then cite to the underlying literature everywhere else that I can, but particularly in the body of the article, and c) if there is more than one high-quality source for use in the body of the article, and they are of equal quality, prefer the freely available one in the body. In other words, yes, use those kinds of sources, they are compliant with MEDRS ... but remember that if we only use them or only prefer them because of their readability and accessibility, then we end up with articles that are no more than a summary of what readers can find elsewhere (that is, from the governmental bodies), without directing them to the underlying literature upon which those pages are based. You can see from citations 2, 4 and 19 that I get the governmental bodies in first, and use them often ... but the bulk of the article is cited to the underlying literature.
You can see similar at Chagas disease#References and at Buruli ulcer#References; WHO is used first and frequently, but it's followed right away by a Lancet article.
Conversely, you can see at Tourette syndrome#References that I avoid to the extent possible citing to the NIH, because it has had errors for decades (which we discussed at length when writing the MEDRS guideline beginning back in 2007); over-relying on governmental bodies can be problematic if the top researchers in the area aren't represented by those bodies or if a proponent is highly placed in the organization, eg PANDAS. (Think in terms of the varying information from the CDC and NIH during the initial stages of COVID.) Regardless of source type used, they're all subject to consensus (the New England Journal of Medicine once printed an infamous error in the basic definition of Tourette syndrome, also well discussed when the guideline was being developed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Remember also that you can usually get someone to send you sources by using WP:RX. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

PD without tremor

I have read that around 20-30% of people with PD don’t have tremor. Can we have that information in the article? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld Definitely. I have no tremor. But we need a source of course. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
In general, the article needs a rewrite and update, and that is best done by getting hold of the latest broadest and best secondary reviews and going top-to-bottom, rather than piecemeal. What are the recent secondary reviews that people are working from here ? I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on anecdote and images on the talk page and in the article, but the needed update should be based on first laying out what the best and newest sources are, and working from them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

getting hold of the latest broadest and best secondary reviews

Totally agree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent reviews for rewrite

  1. Bloem BR, Okun MS, Klein C (June 2021). "Parkinson's disease". Lancet. 397 (10291): 2284–2303. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00218-X. PMID 33848468.
  2. Murakami H, Shiraishi T, Umehara T, Omoto S, Iguchi Y (January 2023). "Recent Advances in Drug Therapy for Parkinson's Disease". Intern Med. 62 (1): 33–42. doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.8940-21. PMC 9876715. PMID 35110492.
  3. Omotosho AO, Tajudeen YA, Oladipo HJ, Yusuff SI, AbdulKadir M, Muili AO, et al. (August 2023). "Parkinson's disease: Are gut microbes involved?". Brain Behav. 13 (8): e3130. doi:10.1002/brb3.3130. PMC 10454343. PMID 37340511.
  4. Pauwels EKJ, Boer GJ (2023). "Parkinson's Disease: A Tale of Many Players". Med Princ Pract. 32 (3): 155–165. doi:10.1159/000531422. PMC 10601631. PMID 37285828.
  5. Tolosa E, Garrido A, Scholz SW, Poewe W (May 2021). "Challenges in the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease". Lancet Neurol. 20 (5): 385–397. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00030-2. PMC 8185633. PMID 33894193.
  6. Wolff A, Schumacher NU, Pürner D, Machetanz G, Demleitner AF, Feneberg E, Hagemeier M, Lingor P (June 2023). "Parkinson's disease therapy: what lies ahead?". J Neural Transm (Vienna). 130 (6): 793–820. doi:10.1007/s00702-023-02641-6. PMC 10199869. PMID 37147404.

That's just a very small start. With over 500 reviews in the last year alone, there is no reason for this article to be mentioning anything that isn't covered in a secondary review in the last five years, because there is such an abundance to indicate due weight. Over the years, from what was once a fine and succint broad overview using summary style with a series of sub-articles, has been degraded by a lack of attention to WP:DUE, and chunking in of pet theories and bits of text without using secondary reviews. If something isn't covered in a recent broad overview, it might have a place in a sub-article, but with the amount of research available, it's hard to see a reason for WP:NOTNEWS-style additions of primary sources here. A rewrite with the most recent secondary reviews to hand is indicated-- updating the still valid to newer sources, and removing the dated and primary studies and UNDUE content, either entirely, or to sub-articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

More:
1) Verhoeff MC, Eikenboom D, Koutris M, de Vries R, Berendse HW, van Dijk KD, Lobbezoo F (July 2023). "Parkinson's disease and oral health: A systematic review". Arch Oral Biol. 151: 105712. doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2023.105712. PMID 37120970.
2a) Gunnarsson LG, Bodin L (January 2019). "Occupational Exposures and Neurodegenerative Diseases-A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses". Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16 (3). doi:10.3390/ijerph16030337. PMC 6388365. PMID 30691095.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
2b) Chambers-Richards T, Su Y, Chireh B, D'Arcy C (March 2023). "Exposure to toxic occupations and their association with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis". Rev Environ Health. 38 (1): 65–83. doi:10.1515/reveh-2021-0111. PMID 34796708.
3a) Thiyagalingam S, Kulinski AE, Thorsteinsdottir B, Shindelar KL, Takahashi PY (2021). "Dysphagia in Older Adults". Mayo Clin Proc. 96 (2): 488–497. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.08.001. PMID 33549267.
3b) Akbar U, McQueen RB, Bemski J, Carter J, Goy ER, Kutner J, Johnson MJ, Miyasaki JM, Kluger B (March 2021). "Prognostic predictors relevant to end-of-life palliative care in Parkinson's disease and related disorders: a systematic review". J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 92 (6): 629–36. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-323939. PMC 8142437. PMID 33789923.
4a) Bougea A, Papagiannakis N, Simitsi AM, Panagiotounakou E, Chrysovitsanou C, Angelopoulou E, Koros C, Stefanis L (February 2023). "Ambiental Factors in Parkinson's Disease Progression: A Systematic Review". Medicina (Kaunas). 59 (2). doi:10.3390/medicina59020294. PMC 9962232. PMID 36837495.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
4b) Dhiman V, Trushna T, Raj D, Tiwari RR (August 2023). "Is ambient air pollution a risk factor for Parkinson's disease? A meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence". Int J Environ Health Res. 33 (8): 733–750. doi:10.1080/09603123.2022.2047903. PMID 35262433.
4c) Huang M, Bargues-Carot A, Riaz Z, Wickham H, Zenitsky G, Jin H, Anantharam V, Kanthasamy A, Kanthasamy AG (September 2022). "Impact of Environmental Risk Factors on Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Neuroinflammation, Protein Misfolding, and Oxidative Stress in the Etiopathogenesis of Parkinson's Disease". Int J Mol Sci. 23 (18). doi:10.3390/ijms231810808. PMC 9505762. PMID 36142718.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
5a) Solch RJ, Aigbogun JO, Voyiadjis AG, Talkington GM, Darensbourg RM, O'Connell S, Pickett KM, Perez SR, Maraganore DM (March 2022). "Mediterranean diet adherence, gut microbiota, and Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease risk: A systematic review". J Neurol Sci. 434: 120166. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2022.120166. PMID 35144237.
5b) Bianchi VE, Rizzi L, Somaa F (July 2023). "The role of nutrition on Parkinson's disease: a systematic review". Nutr Neurosci. 26 (7): 605–628. doi:10.1080/1028415X.2022.2073107. PMID 35730414.
6) "Parkinson's Disease: Challenges, Progress, and Promise | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke".
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 7) Simuni T, Chahine LM, Poston K, Brumm M, Buracchio T, Campbell M, Chowdhury S, Coffey C, Concha-Marambio L, Dam T, DiBiaso P, Foroud T, Frasier M, Gochanour C, Jennings D, Kieburtz K, Kopil CM, Merchant K, Mollenhauer B, Montine T, Nudelman K, Pagano G, Seibyl J, Sherer T, Singleton A, Stephenson D, Stern M, Soto C, Tanner CM, Tolosa E, Weintraub D, Xiao Y, Siderowf A, Dunn B, Marek K (February 2024). "A biological definition of neuronal α-synuclein disease: towards an integrated staging system for research". Lancet Neurol. 23 (2): 178–190. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00405-2. PMID 38267190.
@SandyGeorgia: Pinging ... Lancet seems to be doing some major updates. Hopefully more accurate diagnosis based on biomarkers (as well as new treatments and new definition of the disease) will be available in the near future. A few more papers (reviews) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC); 08:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation style

This article had four different citation styles (I've corrected two of them), some harking to a time before the short footnote (sfn) template existed. Unless anyone objects, I will convert the book sources to sfns with page numbers. See Tourette syndrome and Dementia with Lewy bodies; TS has only books in short footnotes, while DLB uses sfns on all sources so that all page numbers or section headings are identified (the current standard for featured articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. ~ HAL333 18:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I think I'm going to use sfns w/ page numbers as I start rewriting sections. That means there will be a transitory period where some journal articles have sfns and others don't, if that's all right. ~ HAL333 02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Understood ... I think that's the way to go ... at Dementia with Lewy bodies#References, I found with some articles (depending on the pagination) it was much easier to use the loc= parameter to specify a section heading in some cases, rather than page nos. I intended to chip away at all the sfns on books, but I have had back-to-back tragedies IRL, so not keeping up ... will help as I am able on the converts, but no promises I can keep a close eye or help as much as I normally would. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Another thing on the rewrite, HAL333 ... because there is SO much literature on PD, I think a strict summary style to sub-articles will be essential. We have to draw a line of how much detail can be included here, versus at parkinsonism, Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease, Causes of Parkinson's disease, Pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease, Management of Parkinson's disease and History of Parkinson's disease ... really need to be kept to a very broad overview level here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Will do. ~ HAL333 15:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@HAL333:. Thanks for your extensive edits. The following two cites that are throwing Harv errors (doesn't point to any citation): {{sfn|Toloda|2021}}, {{sfn|Blauwendraat|2019}} (should the date be 2020?). This seem to have been introduced by you. Do you have the relevant citations? Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Is there any chance we could find an alternative lead image? The text on it is barely legible without expanding it — I don't think readers should have to click on an image to see what it represents. ~ HAL333 23:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Not thrilled with what is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • A
    A
  • B
    B
  • C
    C
  • D
    D
  • E
    E
  • F
    F
I think some kind of histological sample would be the best way to go. If you look at current featured articles on diseases (Dementia with Lewy bodies, Chagas disease, Coeliac disease, Hepatorenal syndrome etc.) that's what most go with. It's the status quo. If we do go down that route, I've attached some tentative images. F is my preference — I like the staining. B is nice as well. ~ HAL333 03:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
That’s not what most go with. It’s not the status quo. This is the status quo:
File:Blausen_0348_EndometrialCancer.png
File:LungCACXR.PNG
File:Van_Gogh_-_Trauernder_alter_Mann.jpeg
File:Meninges-en.svg
File:Head_of_femur_avascular_necrosis.jpg
File:File-Oxygen_toxicity_testing.jpeg
File:Diagram_showing_the_position_of_the_pancreas_CRUK_356.svg
File:Polio_lores134.jpg
File:RhabdoUrine.JPG
File:Cloth_embroidered_by_a_schizophrenia_sufferer.jpg
File:Illu08_thyroid.jpg
File:Tourette2.jpg; edited to make page loads faster 05:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
14 medical FAs out of the total 23.
BTW, the current lead image doesn’t mean much to me without reading the caption. And even after reading the caption, IMHO our global lay audience won’t know much about alpha-synuclein or Lewy bodies. Further, currently PD isn’t diagnosed by those (unlike other diseases such as Dementia with Lewy bodies), it’s diagnosed by symptoms. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I’ve edited the page :) , added images created from an image uploaded by Msokun, who generously released it under the CC0 license. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It's a bit too many images I think - bloats the infobox. ~ HAL333 21:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I concur that the image is trying to do too much at once ... when it comes to infoboxes, less is more. It would make better since in prognosis or another section which discusses progression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I concur that the new four-way image is trying to do too much at once ... when it comes to infoboxes, less is more. It would make better sense in prognosis or signs/symptoms or another section which discusses progression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Good --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The new proposal is four images, where A is pretty much the same as D, and the images are captioned in a way that they are trying to convey the entire progression of PD in the infobox ... it's too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
GOOD. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
And it’s really good to know the BIG differences between 3 images and 4 images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parkinson%27s_disease&diff=prev&oldid=1181240012
Thanks for telling me that. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we should determine "What image should lead this article?" based on whatever shit, frankly, editors managed to find that was free and stick on other articles, featured or otherwise. Wikipedia is extremely limited in its choice of pictures and most articles are badly illustrated. A better question would be "What images does media with an image budget choose to illustrate articles/books on PD?" And aim to get that if we can. -- Colin°Talk 16:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree (the only reason DLB is a stain TS is Georges is that there is nothing else available). We also need to stop indiscriminately changing images here, and start discussing before changing. The article text/content needs major work; the image issues have so far been a distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The textbook put out by Cold Spring has a graphic highlighting the substantia nigra. Since that's the brain region largely at play, it might be worth it to do the same or have some graphic regarding dopaminergic neurons.
Here are some candidates. ~ HAL333 18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
They can be added to the article, but not the lead. A quote from the first link you posted “this volume is a vital reference for neurobiologists, cell biologists, and pathologists pursuing the biological basis of Parkinson's disease, as well as scientists and clinicians”. I don’t think the images are intended for most of our readers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
And I really don’t think we need a fancy animation in the lead. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


Different versions

I have been testing with different image combinations and have come up with 3 different versions of infobox, A, B, and C here (it’s the sandbox of another user, used in previous lead image discussion [6]). The total width was reduced. C is a variation of A, but the 1880s image doesn’t come first. B uses only 2 images (the photos that are now in the article). Long caption has been removed. But they can be added back or edited easily. The space between images can also be changed (by changing a parameter) if needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to two images (the donkey and fish sizing looks fine), but four is simply too many. I also really don't like the two images we currently have of the gait. They are pretty low resolution and something about it (maybe the low overall quality or pixelated faces) reminds me of a terrorist hostage video. I still think an image of an alpha-synuclein deposit would be the best way to go, but I'm open to alternatives. ~ HAL333 18:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the image of alpha-synuclein deposit belongs to the body, but not the infobox. I still think WP:Technical applies:

This page in a nutshell: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.

I would like to know more on why you insist that we should have it in the lead though. The edit summary you left when adding the current image was simply “added meaningful image ...” --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I have updated the two images (gait). Hope that addresses your concern. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I added 3 more versions, so there are A to F now.
Actually any combination of the different images is possible. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
In this updated sandbox page the infobxes’ width were reduced to 300px, and an image of alpha-synuclein deposit was added below infobox for testing. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the latest sandbox page, which contains 8 versions of infobox, with almost all the possibilities I can think of. While I don’t think the number of images in the box is a big problem, considering that we have 7 images and 4 maps in article like this, I’m open to an infobox with fewer images. Discussion welcomed in case anyone is still not happy with infobox A, which have been included in the article already. I’d be happy with any version (A-H) in the sandbox. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
As a side, there are two versions of Gowers’ sketch in the sandbox. Both are made from his original drawings. The difference between them is that one has better image quality, while the other has thicker lines and thus resembles the long-standing etching more. I made two because I’m not sure which one people would prefer. The later one is in the article now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm cool with what we have now. Nice work. ~ HAL333 00:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, HAL333! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parkinson%27s_disease/Archive_8&oldid=1247660999"