Talk:Intention tremor

Project
We recently updated this page as part of a school project. The information presented in the past introduction was mentioned in our final draft. Any additional comments or recommendations are appreciatedAndyD147 (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me give a bit of feedback. I think this is a very nice start -- most of the necessary information already seems to be present.  What is mainly needed is a thorough cleanup -- the article is full of spelling errors, ungrammatical sentences, etc.  One suggestion I will make is that there are a number of videos on youtube showing examples of this condition, and it would be nice to add pointers to one or two of the best ones -- there's nothing more helpful to understanding this than seeing it in action.  Youtube should not be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles but there is no prohibition on adding links to them at the end of the article, in a See Also or Further Information section.  The best I know of is this one on cerebellar ataxia. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We like your idea about adding a link to a youtube video of an intention tremor so we added that in a new further information section. Also, we looked through the article and tried cleaning up any grammar or spelling mistakes. Hopefully we got most of them and we should catch any left over as we continue work on the article in the coming weeks. Thanks AndyD147 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fast comments
I have made several general comments at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. You should take a look at them since they are in some cases applyable to this article. Some examples below:
 * History sections tend to go at the end of the article.
 * No Caps on titles. Instead of "Motorcycle Accident and Neurological Profile" should be "Motorcycle accident and neurological profile"
 * Similarly linked words should not be capped differentely to what would be done if unlinked. There are many of these errors in the article:
 * For example a paragraph was: such as Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke, Alcoholism, Alcohol withdrawal, Peripheral neuropathy, Wilson's Disease and Fragile X Syndrome, as well as Brain tumors, low blood sugar, normal aging, a variety of drugs, such as sedatives and anticonvulsants, and traumatic brain injury.
 * I have corrected it to: Some causes include a variety of neurological disorders, such as multiple sclerosis, stroke, alcoholism, alcohol withdrawal, peripheral neuropathy, Wilson's disease and fragile X syndrome, as well as brain tumors, low blood sugar, normal aging, a variety of drugs, such as sedatives and anticonvulsants, and traumatic brain injury: only exception is Wilson's disease since it is a proper name.


 * Drug names should neither be capitalized.
 * I am not sure on the usefulness-correctedness of having a section on causes and another on related disorders: it might be worth merging them since they mostly talk about the same.
 * Similarly the paragraph starting: An intention tremor is frequently accompanied by... lacks context: Does not give much info unless it is explained why they usually come together.
 * There is only a paragraph actually describing intention tremor and it is in the lead: On the one hand the lead should only summarize the info of the article, so that info should appear in the body of the article. On the other hand it seems quite short: it would be great to have more info on how intention tremors are.

More to come as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Garrondo for your input. We've tried correcting a lot of the mistakes you pointed out and we're going to look into a better way to possibly set up our sections, merging some if we have to. Also, we'll try adding a little more context to the places you pointed out. Look for changes to come. Thanks AndyD147 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great improvements. Nevertheless I still see some capitalization mistakes in the see also section. Also in this section there should not be articles that have already appeared and linked in the article: Policy is that when a link already appears in the article it should not appear also in the see also section. In this sense "see also" is the place for connected links not mentioned in text.

Right now I do not plan to continue reviews in a systematic way, but rather on those articles that editors seem to work harder and be more interested. Feel free to ask specific questions or leave me a note either here or at my talk page when you feel comments have been adressed. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

More comments:
 * When there are two refs in a row there should be no space between them.
 * Some normal, everyday activities have also been shown to cause intention tremors, including ingesting too much caffeine, cigarettes, stress, anxiety, fear, anger and fatigue: writing is a bit ackward: anxiety, fear or anger are not everyday activities. It should be reworded.
 * A way of aiming to a general audience is to use as less as possible the word "patient", since it is considered that such term is more appropiate in medical language. Since talking about a disease to eliminate it completely is impossible. However it is usually a good idea to alternate it with "individuals", "individuals/those/subjects/people with intention tremor". In other cases the term can be simply eliminated. Take a look if you have time to Parkinson's disease, an article that was very recently promoted to Featured article and in which I was the main editor to get a gist of this kind of editing.
 * When everybody writes an article it is common to overuse the article title (in this case intention tremor). However in most cases it is clear that we are referring to it. When I finish an article I search for the title all over the article and in each occasion I rethink if it is really necessary or it can be eliminated. You would probably be surprised by the number of times it is uselessly used.

Peer review
My group researched something similar to this and so it caught my attention. I think you did a great job at condensing the information for this disease and presented it in an easy-to-read manner. There are a couple points I would like to make though. First, you didn't talk about how these intentional tremors could be caused by Wilson's disease and West Nile Virus. Is it because these result in lesions to different areas of the brain or because they alter neurotransmitter levels? The same could also be said when you mentioned mercury, methyl bromide and lithium. mentioning these causes is no enough and I think if you find a link between these chemicals and the symptom it will strengthen your stub a great deal. You also mentioned some drugs that can induce these intention tremors again without mentioning the pathway through which they effect us. Lastly, you mentioned treatment that was successful in alleviating the symptoms through the breakdown of GABA. Then you followed up with treatment that dealt with the issue through the decrease of serotonin which is excitation. Do these treatments work on different circuits therefore, because if not, this seems a bit counter intuitive. Other than that you did a good job and I thought the pictures in each section were perfect. Lakkisi (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In general just watch out for run-on sentences and repetitive words. Just make sure to separate different ideas. In the “causes” section, for example, it just seemed that “also” was used a lot. In the “research directions” section “currently/current” were used a lot. In the “diagnosis” section there seems to be a typo (sudden “of” gradual instead of, sudden “or” gradual). The last sentence in that section, after the list of important elements to the diagnosis, is a little confusing, maybe try re-wording it. In the “causes” section, you mention how some of the causes are a variety of neurological disorders. This seems as if it could be connected to the “related diseases and disorders” section, maybe you could combine the two sections and make a “mechanism/causes” section? Other than that, I found it easy to read and understand; in particular I thought the “management” section contained a lot of in depth information that was easy to follow. Randiew390 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to simplify some of the language used throughout the article. My group runs into this issue as well, but sometime it just take a clarifying sentence to help the reader out. I would definitely focus on keeping the introduction simple and understandable to all readers. For example, when you say "in particular on ipsilateral side of the lateral zone," it's pretty complex-is there a way to make this location apparent to all readers? Also, in the Management section you talk about a treatment technique of deep brain stimulation and also have a picture-maybe you could have a short sentence explaining this in your article-I know there is a link to deep brain stimulation, but because you have a picture I think it would be good for the reader to be able to look at the picture and understand it without needing to go to another article first. Overall good job on the article, maybe just simplify certain aspects of it. Tbaril52 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
First off, I thought this article was very well written. The scientific writing is presented in a manner than can be easily understood by any potential wikipedia readers. My first comment is merely organizational, but I'm wondering if it would flow better if you were to separate the comments regarding the intentional tremors into distinct categories for the ones stemming from everyday activities and the more permanent tremors. Stylistically, it might flow a little better. Second, the last sentence of the diagnosis section (regarding current medications and pharmacological agents) is too isolated. If possible, I would expand upon this topic with any specific medications that are in use or being tested. If there is no information regarding current medications, it may be better to put that sentence with the rest of the medication information in the research directions section. Our article had a similar issue and it was recommended that we condense certain paragraphs in order to make them more complete. Along the same lines, is there anything that can be added to the history section? Perhaps any initial research done that really opened up the subject? Otherwise, I think this article is very thorough and informative. Good work. Orourkcd (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In general, this article is very well written with minimal grammatical or spelling errors; the only one I could find was in the beginning when "dyskenetic" is linked - I believe it is "dyskinetic" since when I clicked on the link I found "dyskinesia." I find your organization of the article very helpful with the order of the headings and subheadings. The two remaining issues seem to be only to do with (a) expansion and (b) simplification. For expansion, I know there are already numerous sources referenced, but I think finding more review articles to build on history and research directions would be very helpful to the reader for more background and a non-abrupt ending to the article. For simplification, one part I thought could be clarified more was when the tremor is described as low frequency (5 Hz) - for a reader with scientific knowledge it may be easy to imagine the frequency of 5 Hz, but it may be helpful to describe it in cycles per second or whatever you think would make the most sense to the average reader. Maybe if you can find an image or video in the Commons that explains it better, that would be a helpful addition. It may offer more clarification to the reader if you also explored the distinctions between the pathologies of the genetic disorders causing intention tremor and the infections that cause it. Besides those few things, it's a really great growing article! -- JCal2011 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's feedback. We tried accommodating everyone's suggestions into our new edits. Let us know if we missed anything. We'll look it over ourselves and see if we can make any other additions as well.AndyD147 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is very well done and I have noticed you have made some good improvements since the first time I read it. In general the wording is clear and easy to understand. However, consider rewording the first sentence as it is a touch long and I found myself needing to read it more than once to follow what you were saying. The addition of subheading would be helpful in the causes, mechanisms and management sections as they are on the longer side and contain a lot of dense information. Be careful of the overuse of words and phrases (in the mechanisms paragraph three sentences in a row start with: One of the most common, the most common, and a common). Content wise I only have one question, if the tremors are perpendicular to the direction of movement how does dysmetria occur? Is dysmetria simply an additional symptom? Overall, it is a great article.HRockwell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC).

This is a very informative article, well done. I thought you presented the information nicely and in a fashion that is easy to read. There were a lot of links, but I didn't feel as if any were unnecessary, it is good that you don't assume reader's knowledge of the subjects / related subjects. I have a few questions / suggestions though. In the "causes" section, you talked referred to a long list of possible diseases that could cause the intention tremor, however, in the "mechanism" section you only talked about how alcoholism and MS effect the degradation in the cerebrum. Do the long list of other causes effect the brain in the same fashion or are there different mechanisms for the different disease? It is possible that these mechanisms are not fully known, but for the sake of thoroughness, looking for possible ways to incorporate more "causes" into the "mechanisms" portion might be something you could do further. IF you do end up researching more and extending some of your sections, I might advise that you subdivide your article into smaller sections, it seems to have a couple large. It might look more appealing and easier to read if you broke up the information into smaller pieces. One more thing, I am not sure if intention tremor is an official disease, but if it is there is a wiki site specifically for pages about medical disease (formatting and stuff). I plan on using it to edit my article, it looks like a great way to improve and standardize one's page. Manual of Style for medicine-related articles Otherwise, great job. Gleasoda (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project
Hi guys, nice job with the topic, it's substantially improved compared to when you started. A few notes: NeuroJoe (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few comments after your 4/7 reply that didn't seem to be addressed, either by making the suggested changes or by indicating why the changes weren't made.
 * The History section should probably be one of the first sections rather than the last, so your readers have a sense of the topic background early on.

Cannabis for Management
Concerning the following sentence in the "Management" section:


 * "There are alternative treatments available. Cannabis has been offered as an effective treatment for individuals with tremors, but the inclination to find conclusive scientific data on such a treatment has not existed in the medical community.[17]"

The reference given is a review of cannabis in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and discusses the paucity of evidence for using cannabis to treat MS related tremor. It has nothing to do with intention tremor, per se. Also, the suggestion that the lack of evidence of any use of cannabis is due to the fact that the medical community isn't inclined to look for evidence is absurd. This is nothing but a foregone conclusion and has no bearing on the state of affairs. The sentence in question has been removed. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin&#39; (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The subsequent sentence:


 * "There has been no research conducted on the potential benefits of therapeutic Cannabis treatments, not merely a lack of positive research, something that may well be attributed to political or social constraints on the exploration of such a therapy."

Has also been removed as it is nothing more than superfluous editorializing. Why would we call out the fact that there hasn't been sufficient research on cannabis and not call out the infinite number of other "things" that have not been researched for the management of intention tremor? The sentence in question is clearly ideological grandstanding and nothing more. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin&#39; (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)