Talk:Posterior spinal artery syndrome

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): Rsscience, AliZraik, Bmehall1, MitchellMoylan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Goal of this article

The goal of this article is to create a platform for people to understand more about posterior cord syndrome (also known as posterior spinal artery syndrome). Posterior cord syndrome is not a well-known topic, thus this article includes such topics as, posterior cord syndrome symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and more research about posterior cord syndrome to help familiarize and educate more individuals regarding this disease. Little research has been done on the topic, making for a shorter article at this time. As research progresses in the future, addition of new findings would be welcomed to expand on the topic.

Secondary Review I

In the introduction or the etiology section, adding a definition or explanation of what exactly the posterior section of the spinal cord means would be helpful in understanding the rest of the article. Also, what is the goal of your article? This should be added in the talk page as soon as possible. Overall, great job! The article is very well written and informative. DrakeS (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We added the goal of the article to this page and clarified a few of the more scientific points in the text. User:Rsscience (talk) 020:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review II

Something interesting that I learned was that infection from Treponema pallidum (syphilis) can cause progressive degeneration leading to PCS. I also found it very interesting that Vitamin B12 helps synthesize and maintain myelin in the spinal cord. One thing that could be elaborated on is the “Diagnosis” section explaining what is included in a PCS diagnosis. Well written article! Emmett121 (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We reworked and expanded some on the diagnosis hope this helped with any gaps. User:Rsscience (talk) 020:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review III

Hey guys! Just a few things first. On appearances alone, this article seems a bit intimidating. It appears text-heavy and there aren’t many pictures either. I think it would be helpful to average readers for the Etiology and symptoms section to be broken up into smaller parts.

In the lead, six clinical spinal cord injury syndromes are mentioned. It would be helpful to describe these in greater detail or to link to an article.

The lead gives the reader a good idea of what to expect in the rest of the article.

I feel like the first two sentences in the Etiology and symptoms section could either be moved to the lead, or should be separated from the rest of the section. It’s a general overview/summary of the section and is helpful, but the layout clutters everything and makes it hard to follow along. Also, just a minor thing really, but in this overview section, you should list the causes in order of how you address it later on. By that I mean that in the second sentence, you mention "occlusion of the spinal artery, tumors, disc compression, deficiency of vitamin B12, syphilis, or multiple sclerosis," in that order, but you skip over most of those and move straight to describing syphilis, before coming back to describe vitamin B12 deficiency near the end. Aside from this, the citations in this section do appear to be lacking. The information overload in this section and the lack of consistent organization make this portion of the article really difficult to follow, but these are minor things that can be changed relatively easily. I think it’d be a really great section with a bit more organization.

The Diagnosis section feels too small to be allotted its own secondary(?) subheading. Maybe combine Diagnosis, Treatment, and Research into some larger section?

The article overall has very scientific terms all throughout. Adding simple descriptions and definitions would be helpful to the average reader. Good job with the article so far guys, and good luck editing! Chadchang2 (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We reworked the article to flow better and be a little more spaced out. We did also combine some sections. The wording was also worked on some and hopefully is a little confusing now, everything should be fairly well explained. We were also able to add a couple more pictures, hopefully these add to the article and make it more engaging. User:Rsscience (talk) 020:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review 4

I enjoyed reading your article. The information in the beginning was a good concise introduction, and I feel that your group did a good job in being specific for describing the etiology and symptoms. When reading, I found interesting that vitamin B12 is important for myelin synthesis and maintenance. For the treatment section, I found that you should lower case posterior cord syndrome. --Nelu555 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! We went ahead and changed the capitalization, thanks for the catch. Bmehall1 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review 5

Hello, this is a descriptive article that gets to the point, but lacks a little substance, as could be expected. This topic, on the surface, seems hard to write a long Wikipedia page about. A picture or two more of specific aspects of PCS could not only help the reader follow along, but also help the page seem more open. The first paragraph in etiology seems a little out of place. That paragraph explains the causes and I think they could be listed in the introduction. The diagnosis section, I think, could be expanded to include descriptions on how the specific imaging works when imaging the spinal cord. Could also explain more in detail the CSF tests. This could be an opportunity to add more pictures. Also, as mentioned above, not sure if posterior cord syndrome should be capitalized. The page was interesting and did not make me confused, but a little more substance would be good.

NickSchneider (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, it was pretty hard to find a lot of research since the condition is so rare. We did do some more research for information and images to try and expand using the resources that we had based off of your recommendation. Bmehall1 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review 6

So the beginning paragraph has great information but the wording is a little choppy and could be better written so it's more fluent. Also maybe instead of the header Etiology I would put something that more people understand so if they are looking for the cause of the disease they can easily scroll down and find it instead of having to look up what Etiology means. Otherwise that section is really well written and helpful since it explains a lot. Good work on this article it's looking really great. 0346mannv (talk) 5:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Changing the wording for the etiology header is a good idea, we were happy to do that to make the article more readable. Bmehall1 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review 7

Hi guys! Your topic was very interesting and fun to read, I didn't know that there were six different clinical spinal cord injury syndromes! I would love to see more pictures throughout your page to break up the lengthy paragraphs and provide more visuals to accompany readers as they read along. Perhaps adding a picture of what an infraction on the dorsal column looks like in the "Diagnosis" section could be beneficial. Also, expand just a little bit more in the "Diagnosis" section. The second sentence is confusing to read, clarify this sentence by breaking it up into multiple sentences to explain what you were trying to convey. Nc801 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Respond to feedback:

Hey, thank you for the feedback. Our group took your suggestions into consideration. We added more pictures to our article and broke lengthy paragraphs into two or more paragraphs. We decided to combine the "Diagnosis" section with the "Treatment" section. We felt that the two sections went together. We also rewrote and clarified the second sentence that was confusing to you. Thank you again for your feedback! AliZraik (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review

This article was well written and covers the bases thoroughly while also being concise. It also complies with the manual. There are many sources cited throughout which is helpful because it allows for the reader to look deeper into the details of the article. I found that it stays on topic while also branching out and addressing other subjects related to the topic of diagnosis and treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah neuro (talk • contribs) 00:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Respond to feedback:

Hey, thank you for the feedback! We are glad that you thought our article was well written and concise. We tried to find and use as many sources as possible to provide great details regarding PCS. Thanks again! AliZraik (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review

1) Well Written- I thought this article was well written. It had good links to other cites throughout the page and it flowed really well. It also wasn't too technical so outside readers could easily read and understand the content. There were a couple of wording changes I would make. Lead: PCS originates from the posterior spinal artery infarct and is the least common occurring of the six clinical spinal chord injury syndromes, with an incidence rate of less than 1%. Etiology and Symptoms: Explain more about what the lesions are caused by. For example, explain what an occlusion of spinal artery is because it is a little unclear. Generally, lesions are bilateral... Diagnosis: Good and very clear! Treatment: The type of treatment received by the patient with PCS depends on their symptoms... Research: Good!

2) Verifiable- The article provides a list of references that are cited throughout the page. It is clear where the authors got their information from. There is also no original research on this page.

3) Broad in Coverage- This article was broad in coverage and is very focused. It provides enough detail so the reader can understand the content clearly.

4) Neutral- This article was neutral.

5) Stable- This article was stable.

6) Illustrated- The article had a picture but I couldn't find the citation for it.

7) Source Check- I checked source 2. It was a good source from Pub med that explained a case study. The authors of this page used it well and drew from it multiple times.

All in all, a very well put together article! Ktd22 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Respond to Feedback

Hey, thank you for the feedback! We agree. After reading our article several times, we felt that some of our sentences were a bit wordy. Hence, we solved this issue, thanks for the heads up. Also, we cited and added more pictures to our article. Again, thank you for the feedback and I am glad that you enjoyed reading our article. AliZraik (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well written - This article is very well written. The authors were clear, concise, and clearly did their research. This was a scientific article, yet it was very easy to read and is accessible to the general public. See below for any suggestions about content/writing.

2. Verifiable - Many quality and reliable secondary sources

3. Broad yet concise - This is exemplified in the introduction, broad and still focused on PCS

4. Neutral - Does not take a stance

5. Stable - Stable article, focuses on PCS

6. Somewhat Illustrated - could use another picture or two, however has an image, but no citation

7. Source check - See below. Source 5.

Right from the beginning I really appreciate and enjoy seeing how clear and concise your introduction is. It is short enough that it is not intimidating, but still provides a sufficient amount of information about posterior cord syndrome. Another great thing you all did was finding secondary sources and implementing them into your article. Nearly every sentence or paragraph has a source or reference which is great. There are a lot of links which is also really helpful. I found myself using in the etiology section and it was quite helpful. Nice work.

However, I think you could expand your article a bit. I have questions about the etiology and any sort of genetic or developmental reasons for PCS. I would also think your article could benefit by expanding on the early diagnosed cases of PCS. Images would also help this article thrive and would provide more of background and visualization of the syndrome.

I mentioned earlier that you had a lot of great sources, but I found one area of contention and that is your 5th reference. This journal was recently published, and seems to me like a primary source.

Overall I think this page is far from complete (because it is a relatively new concept and more data will come out), but I think you have a great start here. I would just focus on expanding some of your sections (like diagnosis/treatment) and give more information from the sources you already have. Double check your references and make sure you're using secondary sources. Also, try to add at least one more image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBujko (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to feedback:

Thank you for the feedback! We were disappointed in how little information is currently published on the subject. There are no known genetic or developmental causes of PCS, as no case studies have displayed that etiology yet. As the most rare spinal cord syndrome, you're absolutely that this article can be expanded in due time, as more information becomes available. We believe we conducted a thorough analysis of the topic with what is currently out there. We have added another image and analyzed our references again. MitchellMoylan (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary review

Overall, I think you guys need to re-read the article to make sure that each section of the article flows better. The usage of the language throughout the entire page is not understandable to those without prior knowledge. The page is supposed to be easily understood for those without any science background but when I have my non-science friends read it, they still didn't understand posterior cord syndrome. In addition to that, the summary section doesn't really summarize central points of the entire article. Lastly, the picture could use a description of the image so the readers know what they are looking at.

For the "etiology and symptoms" section, I think "etiology" should be replaced by "causes" so it's understandable for all readers. Furthermore, there are a lot of grammatical errors in this section. Please make sure that the tenses used are consistent throughout the section so it is easy to follow along. There are several run-on sentences which can make this section hard to unpack. In addition to that, there can be more transition statements so the content does not seem cluttered and confusing. Lastly, there needs to be a transition sentence for the part about cobalamin. If you guys don't want to add a transition sentence, then just start a new paragraph.

It is explained in the "treatment section" that an injection of dopamine is part of the treatment; however, the article never really mentioned dopamine. So, maybe do more research on the impact and the role of dopamine on PCS patients. If there isn't much research done on it, then explain it in the section.

The research section of the page is disorganized. The content doesn't flow well. The first sentence of the section can be simplified. For example, it could say something along the line of "While it can be difficult to do research on PCS due to variations of conditions, research has helped differentiate PCS from brain injuries." This section needs to be re-read to make sure it flows.

Lastly, none of your sources have any review articles. Case reviews can be part of the sources, but there should also be secondary reviews. In addition to that, Prezi is not a reliable source to cite. Unless the sources are from the Prezi slides, which in that case, those sources need to be cited, not Prezi. There is more content that could have been extracted from the case reviews. Please look at them again to ensure that any information was not left out. In addition to that, there is a primary source cited and I don't think it is allowed.SSneurobiology (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to feedback:

We have improved the accessibility of the article and hope our readers find that it flows better as well. Most wiki articles do not have a "summary" section that outlines the contents of the article. We have an introduction section, meant to give an outline of what PCS is. Generally, wiki articles do not include transition statements but we did find that adding a few aided in the flow of the article. We have also reviewed our sources and have corrected the mistakes. Thank you for the feedback! MitchellMoylan (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)