Talk:Neuroferritinopathy

Review 1
This is a great expansion of the Neuroferritinopathy article. You have added a great deal of information that clarifies what Neuroferritinopathy is, its symptoms, causes, etc. I found that I have a much better understanding of what it is, and I did not have any previous knowledge of this disease. However, I do have a few suggestions on how to further improve your article. First, the article does appear to be well written; it seems to read well, and the only errors I noticed were in the section on “Epidemiology”. You mention Northeast England several times, but “northeast” and “northern” are not capitalized; because they are part of the proper name, “England”, they should be capitalized as well. Also, you mention the FTL gene in the first section, “Classification”, in this abbreviated form. You should say what it is in its non-abbreviated form the first time you mention it, i.e. (ferritin, light polypeptide (FTL) gene). Also, I would add a few more wiki links. There are definitely more terms in your article that could be linked. This helps the reader who does not understand these terms by having quick access to a page that explains them.

Next, your citations and articles look good. The only two that I would look into a little more are the one from 1993 and 2004 (although this is much less of a concern). For Wikipedia, especially medical pages, I believe they like to see articles from within the last 5 years. A majority of your articles are recent, but the one from 1993 is especially old. It is also a little confusing because you say the disease was discovered in 2001, and then you have an article with specific information on it from 1993. However, you seem to cite it mostly in you introduction section, and it is mostly used to cite general information about the disorder, information that I found in the Lehn, A; Boyle, R; Brown, H; Airey, C; Mellick, G (September 2012). "Neuroferritinopathy". Parkinsonism & related disorders 18 (8): 909–15. article as well. The only information not supported in the article is the information about the founder effect. So, it may be beneficial to cite this source along with the 1993 source showing that recent research also supports this information. That way if someone is interested in looking at the sources, there is recent research to back up this information rather than only a source from over 20 years ago.

The article from 2004 is less of a concern because it is not quite as old and you have a topic that likely does not have an abundance of reviews, but if you can see if another more recent source also supports some of the research provided by this article, this would give it greater reliability, and then you can just cite them both on the same line. Again, several pieces of information supported by the 2004 article, are also supported by the Lehn, A; Boyle, R; Brown, H; Airey, C; Mellick, G (September 2012). "Neuroferritinopathy". Parkinsonism & related disorders 18 (8): 909–15. article. So if you co-cite the articles it indicates that current research is supportive of the older research, and then there is less concern about the reliability of the information. However, because this is a newer topic more additional research may be hard to find, so use of the 2004 article is still beneficial to your overall article. Moreover, your inline citations look good. The only area you seem to be missing a citation is in the mechanism section. It is not very clear to me where you got the information on the Fenton reaction. You cite Lehn, A; Boyle, R; Brown, H; Airey, C; Mellick, G (September 2012). "Neuroferritinopathy". Parkinsonism & related disorders 18 (8): 909–15. at the end of the paragraph, but this source has no information on the Fenton reaction. So I would just make it a little clearer as to where that information was sourced from as you mention it and have the reaction formula present. Otherwise, upon brief review of each of you articles, they all appear to be legitimate sources that contain no original research making your article verifiable.

With all that being said, I did read the Lehn, A; Boyle, R; Brown, H; Airey, C; Mellick, G (September 2012). "Neuroferritinopathy". Parkinsonism & related disorders 18 (8): 909–15. article. It is a secondary source as it is a review of research on Neuroferritinopathy presented in a seemingly reliable journal that does do external reviews of articles prior to publishing. So it follows the guidelines of a secondary source in medicine as defined by Wikipedia, and it does appear to be cited correctly throughout the article. Additionally, it appears to be well used throughout your paper. The article presents relevant information on the mechanism, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and the epidemiology of Neuroferritinopathy. You seem to have utilized all this information and incorporated it into your article well.

The only thing you did not seem to mention in your “Signs and Symptoms” section is although all forms of Neuroferritinopathy seem to present classic symptoms, there can be variation in onset, progression, and development of cognitive impairment from person to person. The article seems to emphasize this, even presenting a table from different researchers who had different subjects present with varying symptoms at varying ages and degrees of progression. So it may be helpful to mention that although there are common symptoms for all patients, there is variation. This article also provides some information on how an MRI is carried out and how it works to show signs of Neuroferritinopathy that may be helpful for the reader to better understand the technique used in MRI diagnosis. Lastly, this article does provide some additional information for your “Research Direction” section specifically on future research on treatment and early diagnosis techniques that may be beneficial to add to you “Research Direction” section as this section is very small. It could use greater expansion and information as to what research is being done or how they plan to do it, and what benefits it may provide if successful. Otherwise, you seemed to use a lot of the information from this article to support your writing, and again, you may even consider using it as a co-citation for some of the other information in your article that this article also supports as I explained above.

Additionally, your article does appear to be broad in coverage and neutral. You seem to have covered all the topics required for a medical article and more, providing a lot of relevant information in each section especially considering the relatively recent discovery of this disease and the few cases that have been diagnosed. I did suggest some things you could add in the paragraph above, but otherwise you seem to have covered the topic well. Also, I did not notice anything that would indicate bias. You seem to present the information without indicating a specific viewpoint or bias.

Lastly, I would add an image or two. There may not be a specific image for Neuroferritinopathy, but you could give an image of the chemical formula of iron, a picture of the regions of the brain affected, etc. Otherwise, you have done a nice job with the article. I learned a lot; so keep up the good work.7753spoom (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 1 to Review 1
Thank you for all of the very useful advice! The grammar corrections for the 'Epidemiology' section were the first edits to be made since they were necessary edits to be made. Along with the grammar corrections in the 'Epidemiology' section, your advice to include information about the variation of all of the classic symptoms was also included into the 'Signs and Symptoms' sections. And of course, photos were added to the page! MadelineJuliette (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 2 to Review 1
Thank you so much for reading our page and giving so many good suggestions! Your concern about the 1993 article is warranted. However, the date was merely an issue of automatic wiki referencing. It was actually written in 2005, and was updated again in 2010. We have changed the date in the reference section. Thank you for catching this issue! We are not concerned with the 2004 article because we wanted to have an article that discussed the disease shortly after its discovery. We also included the full name for the FTL gene in the classification section and even wikilinked it. Additionally, we tried to add more wikilinks to the whole page. Thanks again for all your advice! LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 3 to Review 1
Thank you for the review. I added an additional source that specifically refers to the Fenton mechanism. Btw777 (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 2
I really enjoyed reading your expansion of the Neuroferritinopathy article. There is a lot of information that further aided in my understanding of what it is in a simplified tone. I did not have any previous knowledge of the disease yet I felt I could really understand what I was reading. While you did a good job of adding to this article there are certain things that I suggest you should do in order to help. While I had an easy time understanding your article, there are many high school kids and aspiring scientists that may not have the knowledge and vocabulary I do. Because of this I feel that you should add some more wiki links in order for people to have easier access to words they may have never heard of before. Also I feel it is important that in order for you to abbreviate something you should really provide the written out form first. For example you mention the FTL gene in classification but never provide the actual name of the FTL gene.

When citing your article you do a good job of using them to their full extent. I looked closely into the article from 1993. This seems to be a major source in your article and I feel that this is something that should be more of a historical background rather than a main source. This article is very old and I fear that many of the things from it may be outdated. With all the advances in science we make day to day I feel like many of the things from this article may be countered by some of your other articles. One main problem I found was that you say the disease was discovered in 2001 yet how can it have an article from 1993 if it wasn’t even discovered yet? I would suggest using a more recent article to cross section information and make sure all your research in the article is up to date. I feel you did a good job not using original research and from what I saw, other than possibly the article from 1993, all of your citations are good and contribute well to the expansion of the article.

I felt as far as being broad in coverage this article does a great job. I really have no suggestion on how to improve this aspect. Considering this is a relatively new disease, I feel there would not be an overwhelming amount of information about it out there yet the article does a nice job of providing a strong base for anyone looking further into the disease. When explaining this disease I never felt confused or like you were going off topic. The article remained focused and self-explanatory throughout. Obviously with any medical article there are going to be things that are just unavoidably confusing but that is why I suggested more wiki links above.

Lastly, I feel that this article could use an image or two. While im sure there is not a plethora of images for Neuroferritinopathy when searched on google images, maybe you could try to find some chemical structure or a radiographic image of someone with the disease. Overall well done and good luck with the revisions. Scienceguy21 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 1 to Review 2
Thank you for reading our page and providing such helpful advice! We included the full name of the FTL gene in the classification section and wikilinked it. We also increased the number of wikilinks in the article as a whole. We also have added images. Your concern about the 1993 article is warranted, just like 7753spoom in Review 1. However, the date was merely an issue of automatic wiki referencing. It was actually written in 2005, and was updated again in 2010. We have changed the date in the reference section of the page. Thank you again for your suggestions! LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 3
Overall, this article is greatly expanded upon, and I believe that you have accomplished your goal. Many of my suggestions are minor things because overall I think this article is good. I was not familiar with Neuroferritinoopathy, but after reading this article I believe I have an understanding of the disease.

Introduction: Throughout the article, and specifically in the introduction, ferritin is capitalized when it should not be capitalized every time. The introduction is a very well-written section that nicely covers all of the sections of the article that you will address in a brief manner. There are a sufficient number of wikilinks in the introduction to allow better understanding for readers that are not familiar with the topics covered. I would suggest that an image should be included here, possibly one of an MRI of an Neuroferritinopathy patient (if you can find one in the public domain).

Classification: This section is pretty well written; however, I would suggest possibly including some more wikilinks for certain words (basal ganglia or allele) for those who are not familiar with these terms. I would put a little more information in this section regarding the background of the FTL gene - specifically, mention what the acronym FTL stands for. The acronym is mentioned in the "Causes" section, so I would put it earlier as well so that the reader is not trying to figure out what it means when they get to it.

Signs and Symptoms: This section was written well overall, I like the way it was divided because it made it clear and straightforward. However, a few notes; in the first paragraph of "Medically Tested Symptoms" the "Along with the accumulation of iron..." sentence should be "in the brain" not "with the brain". Parkinsonism should also not be capitalized when it is not at the beginning of the sentence. Also, being really picky, I would say you should try to cut down on the unnecessary words to make the section flow better. Examples are words like "typically" and "possibly" and "generally". It makes you seem unsure. To be more straightforward I would say something like "Iron accumulation has been found to be a consequence of...". Overall, this section is well-written and clear with providing a clear overview of the symptoms of neuroferritinopathy.

Causes: This section has a good style, but I would include more wikilinks. Also, for carboxyl I would include a link to carboxylic acid for the readers who do not know what carboxyl is. In addition, I believe a word such as exon needs to be either defined or wikilinked. I would also mention that adding two nucleotide bases into the sequence is a frameshift mutation. A free radical should also be defined or wikilinked as to explain to the reader what it is if they are not sure. Overall, this section is well-written, just a few things should be fixed here or there for clarity sake. Very good.

Mechanism: Once again, ferritin should not be capitalized. Also, I would make it so the Fenton reaction looks like it would if written out normally. For example: (1) Fe2+ + H2O2 → Fe3+ + HO• + OH− or (2) Fe3+ + H2O2 → Fe2+ + HOO• + H+. This is just a minor formatting issue that I think if changed will make it easier to read. Also, the paragraph below the Fenton Reaction tends to repeat a lot of already stated information above, if it is not necessary to state again I would remove it, or if you can find more information that can supplement what is written that would be better! Overall, this section was pretty good. I liked the style of it, most of my issues with it are just a few formatting things that a minor.

Diagnosis: I would wikilink Alzheimer's disease. I like how this section is organized; it makes it clear and straight to the point. The physiological testing could use either a few more wikilinks or a description of what certain things are (ex. cytochrome c oxidase-negative fibers). Overall, this section is very well-written, it is clear and straightforward, only a few minor changes I think need to be made.

Treatment: I would state what focal dystonia is for the reader, wikilink is good too.

Epidemiology: All instances of "northern England" and "northeast England" should be capitalized. Also, the sentence that starts "Along with the first case..." does not need to mention Northern England twice, it was mentioned early in the sentence and it says the same thing when mentioned again. Overall, this section is good.

Research Directions: I do not believe that Venesection and Iron chelation should be capitalized. This section is short, is there a possible way it can be expanded - a short description about the two possible treatment research directions.

References: I looked closely at Article 7, this article mentioned a lot in regards to the structure of the ferritin protein. While I understand this topic is not the focus of your paper, it is mentioned. And, because much of this disease focuses on the L-chain, a short description of what the L-chain is and it's importance could be beneficial. Is Figure 1 in the public domain? If it is I would include it, if it is not, I would find an image that is similar as to assist in understanding of the L-chain and its relation to neuroferritinopathy. Another reference is from 1993, this is old. The information is only in the introduction, so I believe you can use your other sources to cite this information and keep this older article as a supplement on top of the other reference. Otherwise, the sources all seem to be secondary articles, which is good.

Overall, the whole article is well-written and is clear and concise to the give understanding of neuroferritinopathy. I enjoyed reading the article as it was interesting and easy to read. Besides the minor corrections I mentioned above I would add some images to supplement the whole article. I'm sure there aren't many images for this, but possibly an MRI scan if you can find one? Good work on this article, it is much improved. 1415jacobsx (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 1 to Review 3
Thank you for all of the generous advice on your review. All of the grammatical errors found in the 'Epidemiology' section concerning the capitalization of 'Northern' and 'Northeast England' were the first edits to be made since they were absolutely necessary. Along with the grammar corrections in the 'Epidemiology' section, your advice to exclude the 'typically' and 'generally' words was taken in to account and a few of them were edited out; however, not all of them could be removed because the symptoms that are being described do not absolutely happen with every patient on a strict timeline. The symptoms described are only the classic indicators of the disease. And of course, photos were added to the page to pull everything together! MadelineJuliette (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 2 to Review 3
Thank you for reading our page very closely and providing such a thorough review! We took your advice and wikilinked basal ganglia and allele in the classification section. We also wikilinked carboxyl, exon, and free radical in the causes section. We further explained that the mutations are frameshift and wikilinked frameshift mutation. We chose not to explicitly explain the four alleles because we thought it was beyond the scope of this wikipage and too technical of information. We did explain the mutations involved though. Finally, we wikilinked Alzheimer's disease in the diagnosis question and included more wikilinks in the physiological testing subsection. Thanks again!! LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Response 3 to Review 3
Thank you for the review. I reformatted the Fenton reaction mechanism and included another source that references it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btw777 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 1
I really liked reading this article. I particularly liked that you described the mechanism or mutation that brings about this abnormality. Great detail and it is conveyed in understandable terms. I would like to see more pictures and links that would make it easier for other people that haven't taken college level courses to grasp this information. Again, great overview and summary of information. The fact that there haven't been that many cases may limit the available information ("Fewer than 100 cases of neuroferritinopathy have been reported since its identification in 2001"), but what is here is quality. Thank you! Jamesbond35 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 2
I think you did a great job expanding the Neuroferritinopathy article! You did particularly well giving a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the disorder without using language that was too technical for the audience. Although I do have some background knowledge in regards to biology, neuroscience, and the brain, I believe someone who does not have this same previously learned information could still understand this article. My only question arose in the 'medically tested symptoms' section where it is stated that "It is a possibility that the iron accumulation in the brain is a consequence of neurodegeneration resulting in neuronal damage and loss of neurons". This confuses me because in the 'causes' section it is explained that a mutation in the FTL chain causes the accumulation of iron, not neurodegeneration as suggested in the previous sentence. Maybe I am just not understanding the sentence but I thought I'd still bring it to your attention. Good job! Mprosser17 (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 3
I thought that the article was well written. It covered a lot of specifics concerning how hypofrontality leads to behavioral and psychiatric defects. It was very interesting to learn that many diseases are affected by hypofrontality including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The page has good content. However, I would recommend moving the associated medical conditions section towards the bottom of the page so that the reader can better understand the condition before learning how it affects other diseases. It might also be interesting to add a section for symptoms of hypofrontality. Overall, the article was well written and covered the topic in sufficient detail.--Sweng15 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 4
I thought that this article was extremely interesting and well-organized. I thought that you did very well making the sentences simple, making it more universal to the audience; someone with little background knowledge about this subject would be able to understand the content. Additionally, the organization of your article was very well-put and I thought your order of your subsections were very well placed. However, I would recommend adding some more details. One detail to possible include is the four alleles that contribute to Neuroferritinopathy. You mentioned that there were four alleles in your article but did not mention which ones they were. You could possibly include that in your article. Nevertheless, I think your article is well-written and believe that many people would get a lot of useful information by reading it. PrestonBIO (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 5
To begin with, the introduction section of the article was well written. It really gave the reader an overview of what the article had to offer to the viewer and it did this in a way that all types of people would be able to understand in regards of clarification. The layout of the article was very well organized which made it great for the reader. It was neat that the mechanism was added into the article. This for me was really interesting to see because it allowed me to see the exact steps that are involved in the reaction. The only suggestions that I would look into would be expanding your signs and symptoms section if possible just because it does not really give the reader lot of information on the signs and symptoms. Overall I really enjoyed reading about Neuroferritinopathy because I am new to this topic. Buchaly15 (talk) 6:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 6
Even just looking at the word neuroferritinopathy is tough, but I think the group did a real good job at breaking down this topic, and putting concepts into terms that can be understood. I saw sort of a heavy reliance on the first source for a lot of the information, but this is something that even my own group fell into; we found a book that laid out so much for us, and I’m guessing this is what happened here. Following the guidelines for “what is a good article,” if there is a space where an image could be helpful, then there should be one. I think that this group could benefit from a few photos: perhaps (if there is one available) an MRI comparing a “normal” adult brain compared to one that has an accumulation of iron, or rather just an anatomical diagram of the brain that could be helpful in guiding the thoughts of the readers, as they can see parts that are mentioned in the article. Overall though, I thought the article was well written and had a very nice structure. Good work! Specialtexas (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible References
Reference on the basics of Iron-related Neurodegenerative Diseases LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference on Iron Accumulation in the Brain LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of current understanding of Neuroferritinopathy Btw777 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of all published data of Neuroferritinopathy Btw777 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Btw777 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Instruction to Authors
Before beginning our research, there was not a great deal of secondary literature to work with on the then current article of Neuroferritinopathy. Our goal for this article was to cover all basic and relevant aspects of the topic. All of the information provided on our page is from research that we conducted. We intend to be as general and neutral as possible with all of the material covered and hope that the information given is useful and informative! MadelineJuliette (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015