Talk:Cerebellar abiotrophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Importance[edit]

I've rated this as "Low" because I expect that "Few readers outside the veterinary medicine community or that are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter." See Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine/Assessment. Dlh-stablelights 09:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, as creator and a major editor, I'm a little vested in this one so shouldn't be the one rating it, but wondering if any argument to be made to boost it to mid, especially considering the number of pedigreed dog breeds that are impacted, particularly Scottish terriers? (In comparison, what is the ranking for hip dysplasia??) The mid-importance standard is, "readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject." Not worth a real argument, more an inquiry. Note the description is, "Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand veterinay medicine. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text." Kind of thinking this is one step up from the low ranking, "Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of veterinary medicine." My reasoning is that neurological conditions in general are a "thing" that pops up for both horse and dog people at times, and for laypeople who breed horses and dogs of the vulnerable breeds, this is most certainly not minutae. However, like I say, I shouldn't be the one deciding this. Just making a case. (grin) Montanabw 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've reached this article in my assessments, I'll give my opinion. I would leave it at low importance, due to the literature on this disease being fairly sparse (a search at PubMed gives only 40 articles, with only three being equine specific). Also, I am biased by the fact that I have never seen, or at least never diagnosed, this condition in dogs. Since we have that great photo in the article, I know the same can't be said in Montanabw's case. But I would still say low importance.
Incidentally, Montanabw, I don't think there is any problem with rating your own article, as long as you apply the same standards. I've certainly been rating mine as I go along (and quite a few of them have gotten low importance ratings), so any others that you have created, go ahead and assess. Also, if you wouldn't mind uploading that image and any others you have to Wikimedia Commons, we could use some more horse images. There are couple of very active German veterinarians over there, and I'm sure they would appreciate them for the German wikipedia. Everything is organized by disease type over there (e.g. Category:Veterinary Neurology). Thanks. --Joelmills 00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, for reasons I am reluctant to explain publicly, the photo needs to keep some restrictions. However, I think I have a license on it that would allow the Germans to upload it over there (and they must check out the Swiss links, BTW). As for CA, seems the folks in the dog world most worried about it are the Scottie people. As for importance, the statistics on a "generic" recessive disease seem to average around 3 percent of a given population, and it's a good guess that the Arabian breed has about that rate (previous studies on another recessive, SCID, were in that ballpark prior to the development of a DNA test.) So as far as the importance scale goes, I guess whatever a disease that affects 3% of primarily one breed of horse and however many purebred dogs... your call. Montanabw 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cerebellar abiotrophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cerebellar abiotrophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cerebellar_abiotrophy&oldid=1207068193"