Talk:Chorea

Choreia (disease)
It would nice if this page discussed the phrase "St. Vitus Dance," since the disambig page points to this page. The Vitus page, on the other hand, says St. Vitus Dance refers to epilepsy...? Afabbro 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

sdljnba;srnb;arsjba; CREEPYYYYY

 == is chorea characterized by being strictly proximal and increased associated movement? == 

Bad Article Name
Choreia is not a disease; it's a "disorder". This means it's a description of a problem, which can be caused by any number of things. A disease is a single ailment caused by a specific thing. The article name needs to be changed. --Kaz (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see move discussion below. Dubbin u &#124; t 16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Title spelled incorrectly?
A Google search yields 2.4 million results for "Chorea" and only 0.1 million results for "Choreia". Also, several major medical entities use the "Chorea" spelling: NIH: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/chorea/chorea.htm MayoClinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/huntingtons-disease/DS00401/DSECTION=symptoms

I propose that the spelling of the title be corrected to match common usage. 173.170.198.38 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see move discussion below Dubbin u &#124; t 16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was 'Revised move request submitted - see below. Dubbin (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

– (a) The medical term is unequivocally the primary topic. No results for the dance are in the first 5 pages of a Google search. A disambiguation page is not necessary - since there are only two competing topics, the medical term can mention the dance as a hatnote. (b) The archaic spelling is no longer in use. Google yields 3million hits for 'chorea' but only 130,000 for 'choreia'. This move is uncontroversial but requires an admin, I think Dubbin (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Chorea → (delete)
 * Choreia (disease) → Chorea
 * Choreia → (delete and replace with redirect to Chorea)


 * Oppose. This RM is not uncontroversial.
 * I support the primary move; but I oppose Choreia → (delete and replace with redirect to Chorea). Look at Googlebook results for "choreia", with restriction "Books›Jan 1, 1980–Dec 10, 2011›Preview and full view" (so current and checkable). "Choreia" is very clearly the term for Greek dance (from which we get the words "choreography", "chorus", and more). I propose these titles instead:
 * Chorea for the disease, with hatnote for Choreia
 * Choreia for the dance, with hatnote for Chorea
 * Chorea (disambiguation) for both articles, and any others that include "chorea" or "choreia" in their titles.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I nearly suggested that precise arrangement, but decided against, since the google result was so overwhelming that it seemed to me that in the modern age 'choreia' crops up more frequently as an explanation of the origin of the medical term than as the name of the dance. I have no objection to your suggestion, and the current situation is egregiously wrong, so for the sake of expediency I propose we open both options to discussion:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! width="50%" |Option A !! width="50%" | Option B
 * Chorea → (delete)
 * Choreia (disease) → Chorea, with hatnote for Choreia (dance)
 * Choreia → (delete and replace with redirect to Chorea)
 * Chorea for the disease, with hatnote for Choreia
 * Choreia for the dance, with hatnote for Chorea
 * Chorea (disambiguation) for both articles, and any others that include "chorea" or "choreia" in their titles.
 * Chorea for the disease, with hatnote for Choreia
 * Choreia for the dance, with hatnote for Chorea
 * Chorea (disambiguation) for both articles, and any others that include "chorea" or "choreia" in their titles.


 * }


 * ... and I suggest that for the current setup to be retained, the number of oppose 'votes' needs to exceed the combined 'votes' for both move options. For the record, my view is support option A, and I take yours to be support option B rather than the absolute 'oppose' above. Dubbin (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dubbin, it's great that we both want to work systematically with this. But I have to tell you, I see nothing to commend option A at all.
 * A technical point: Googlebooks will substitute the more familiar "chorea" for "choreia" if you don't put the word in quotes! So now look at these two searches:
 * "1. 'choreia' (neurology OR neurological): 35 hits"
 * "2. 'choreia' (poetry OR Pindar) 380 hits (at a minimum: there is a complex story to tell about that)"
 * The restriction in search 2 is far tighter than in search 1, but it still gets more than ten times as many hits.
 * Since "choreia" is used so infrequently for the disease (given almost exclusively in mere etymological explanations of "chorea", not anything of substance or content), why upset the rightful and active status of "choreia" as an important historical dance, literary, and musical term? You do not seem to have set out to do that; why do it now, when the many recent Googlebooks hits for "choreia" (as dance) might reasonably persuade you otherwise? To put it another way (in terms that I normally avoid): surely the "primary topic" for "choreia" is the dance topic, right? So the dance article ought to have first claim on that title.
 * I am always ready to look at arguments and change my mind. I hope you are too. So far the best option seems to be that we abandon option A, and unite in favour of option B. That may mean withdrawing, and starting a new RM. How's that, then?
 * N oetica Tea? 12:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm persuaded Dubbin (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved. Can someone check on the redirects? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Choreia → Chorea (disambiguation)
 * Choreia (disease) → Chorea with a hatnote for Choreia the dance
 * Choreia (dance) → Choreia with a hatnote for Chorea the disorder

– The medical term is the primary topic for 'chorea', for which 'choreia' is not used except etymologically. 'Choreia' best defines the Greek dance. See discussion above. Dubbin (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent resolution. The DAB page Chorea (disambiguation) can be populated also with a few more titles that include either term. N oetica Tea? 12:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- The hatnote is necessary and should be useful to those having difficulaty over the spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support BlueBirdo (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- This also solves the problem of the article being mis-named "disease", when it's actually a disorder. --Kaz (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments after the recent move
Thanks to Vegaswikian for these moves. I have adjusted details as necessary at the DAB page, and fixed hatnotes at the moved articles. N oetica Tea? 06:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.146.227 (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviews for Wiki Initiative project
Hi. You’re article has some good information, but is mostly lacking in its syntax and punctuation. Here are the things that stuck out to me as I read through your article: Also in this section, you have nothing hyperlinked to other pages. This is something you should do to make it easy for your readers to quickly define something they don’t know much about. For example, you talk about genetics early on, and you could link some terms like “dominant trait” that the typical reader might not understand. At this point, I think you get the idea of the major errors in your article. Probably 95% of the problems in this article are syntax or grammar. By using common editing techniques and perhaps printing your article and having some more friends peer review for you, I think your article will be greatly improved! MSederberg21 (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you for all of the really helpful feedback! I plan on taking a large majority of the advice and directly applying it to my section "Types of Chorea". I am still working on finding correct statistics for a proper comparison to the numbers we have from 1900. Also, if you have any suggestions of what type of image I should upload, I am open to suggestions. Thanks again! SydneyFocht (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your introductory section is very good, but could be expanded if you had some more relevant information that provides an overview. If there isn’t much more information available for this section, then I would leave it as is because it provides some good information.
 * The presentation section is also good when it comes to information, but I would consider trying to consolidate this because it is broken into several paragraphs. Otherwise, I realize the paragraphs don’t really fit entirely together, so you may also consider just adding some more information to each paragraph so it doesn’t appear so choppy.
 * Next, in the causes section, I have a couple of suggestions. The third bullet says that chorea gravidarum is a rare type of chorea with is a complication of pregnancy. Since this is under the “causes” section, I would like to know what actually causes this to happen. Obviously, pregnancy does not cause this condition; some complication does. So what is the complication? There are a few others listed here you could also apply the same question to, such as Wilson’s disease. Expanding on some of these and providing an explanation could really beef up your article.
 * In your Types of Chorea section, there were several things I noticed. First, each time you talk about a different “type” of chorea, you should make that a subheading. For example, at the start, you say huntington’s chorea, but it is not in subtitle format. If you don’t know how to do this, check out the wiki markup cheatsheet, found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welcome2WP_English_Flap_081810.pdf
 * Next, you have several grammatical errors in the entire “types of cholera” section. Many of your commas are inappropriately placed and are very distracting. For example, in your sentence that reads “Generally, the choreic movements accompanied by the mental disorder, do not skip a generation, making it a dominant trait, so people affected with this disease must choose their spouses accordingly,” you have an unnecessary comma between “disorder” and “do.” In the next sentence, “Along with the generic traits of Chorea such as: the progressive tremors in […],” you include a colon that should not be included. You should not include a colon when the sentence flows well without it. If your sentence read “[…] the following generic traits of Chorea: progressive tremors […],” then the colon would belong. Also, you have some major syntax errors in this section. An example of this is found in the same sentence I mentioned previously: “Along with the generic traits of Chorea such as: the progressive tremors in that effect the head and limbs tremors, the symptoms occurring in later life, and usually increasing mental deterioration, Huntington’s Chorea can consist of all or just some of these traits to varying degrees.” This is a run-on sentence that doesn’t make any sense. I would encourage you to break this sentence up into a couple of different sentences. There are numerous grammatical errors that I noticed in this section, and I would encourage you to use basic editing techniques to correct these errors. One technique that I would use would be reading the section aloud to a friend. This is a great way to pick up on errors that you may have missed the first time through.
 * Next, I will examine the content of the “types of chorea” section. In the first sentence, you write, “Chorea is inherited, usually from generation to generation.” You don’t need to include “usually from generation to generation” in this sentence because all things inherited never skip a generation. If you mean that the phenotype is usually displayed from generation to generation, you should clarify that. But to say that something is “inherited, usually from generation to generation,” is very redundant because it is impossible for an inherited gene to “skip” a generation and then show up in another. I think you intend to say the phenotype usually shows up in every generation, but you should make this clear. In your second sentence, you write that it is a dominant trait, and then state that affected persons should choose their spouses accordingly. This doesn’t make much sense from a biological standpoint. Obviously, someone who displays the trait should not mate with someone else who displays the trait, but in a disorder with low prevalence (which I am assuming this has), most people won’t have to worry about choosing an appropriate mate. If this trait were a recessive trait, such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis, then you would want carriers to choose spouses accordingly. In your fourth sentence, you use the term “strains of families.” I am unsure of what this phrase or sentence means in general. You also contradict yourself at the end of this sentence when you write, “based on its lack of [sic] heritability.” In the previous sentence, you said it is a dominant trait and you mentioned earlier that it passes from generation to generation, which would mean it has a high heritability. So this contradiction is confusing. When you list several accompanying diseases in your sixth sentence and use the term “feeble mindedness.” “Feeble mindedness” was a term used in the late 1800s-1920s that is similar to our modern phrase of “mental handicap.” To be politically correct, you should consider changing “feeble mindedness” to a more appropriate term. In your last sentence you say “this information leads us to believe […].” You should try to leave personal pronouns such as us, we, I, me, etc. out of your article. Encyclopedia articles should be written in 3rd person format.
 * In the next paragraph of the “types of chorea” section, I am concerned about your syntax because it really threw me off. In your second sentence, “this type is increasingly rare and it may be partially due to penicillin, improved social conditions, and/or a natural reduction in the virus it has stemmed from,” you lead readers to believe that the type of chorea is caused by penicillin, improved social conditions, etc. You should reword the start of this sentence to “this type is becoming increasingly rare due to penicillin, improved social conditions, […].” This makes it clear to the reader what you mean. Again, in your fourth sentence, you use an unnecessary colon and you should not start your sentence with “they include […].” Instead, write this: “The psychological symptoms include emotional liability, obsessive-compulsive behavior, […].”
 * In your final paragraph in this section, you state a statistic from 1900. I think you should try to find a more relevant and recent statistic rather than using one from over 100 years ago. This is especially true in an article about medicine, where the technology and knowledge has increased dramatically over the past 100 years. You also say “an average 1 in 300 cases were recorded.” This makes it sound like only 1 of 300 occurring cases was noted. After reading the source that you included, I think you actually mean 1 case for every 300 births was reported. This is the prevalence rate; 1 out of 300 births. But again, I don’t think the prevalence rate in 1900 is relevant to this article.
 * I also notice that throughout the article you occasionally capitalize chorea. This should not be done because chorea is not a proper noun.

I agree with MSederberg21 that grammar improvements need to be made in the types section. See those notes. As well as the use of choreic movements should actually read choreatic movements. I think you also meant genetic instead of generic in line 2 under types. I agree about subheadings as well, namely they should be ==Huntington's Chorea==, ==Sydenham's Chorea== and ==Gravidarum Chorea==. The discussion on genetics is confusing. Although you list Huntington's Chorea as dominant you later state that it lacks heritability. Perhaps when speaking of the genetics you could state the details of inheritance specifically so that it is understood better by all readers. In the second section you mention when talking about Sydenham's Chorea "This type is increasingly rare and it may be partially due to penicillin..." perhaps restated as "This type is increasingly rare and it may due in part by increased usage of antibiotics such as penicillin, as well as improved living conditions and perhaps also a natural reduction in the frequency of the virus that leads to Sydenham's Chorea." Also if you determine which virus leads to this that would also be good information. In the third section you mention choreic symptoms which should be choreatic symptoms. Do you have a current statistic to compare the 1900 statistic to, because that would give that statement more relevance to the article. You state that Gravidarum can be caused by the use of contraceptives, do you know which ones specifically, as this would be good information to add to this section. When I read the types section I see a lot of information that could mainly use some sentence rearrangement as well as a few spelling errors. Also another side note, the section that includes causes talks about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and although it is a hyperlink I think it would also be good to insert a statement here that the common name given to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is 'mad cow disease.' Any assistance you would like I would be happy to give, just let me know. The article has great information and it displays a lot of hard work and some additional care is only beneficial. Icecreamcooper (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

uploading images http://File%20Upload%20Wizard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard Icecreamcooper (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the detailed feedback! I agree that I have quite a few grammatical errors left to fix while I am also working on finding more recent statistics to compare to the ones that I have already mentioned. If I have any further questions, I will be sure to contact you! Thanks again! SydneyFocht (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450
— Assignment last updated by Ericksmd3839 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)