Talk:Nocturia

Peer Reviews
1. Quality of Information: 2

The information presented is factual.

2. Article size: 0

The article itself meets the assignment requirements, but the author's contribution does not. This was also completed after the deadline.

3. Readability: 2

This is very easy to read.

4. Refs: 2

The author used more than the required number of references.

5. Links: 2

There are a lot of links to other wikipedia pages throughout the article.

6. Responsive to comments:2

There are no comments yet.

7. Formatting: 2

This was formatted very well and divided into subtopics that made sense.

8. Writing: 2

This was well written.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

The username is close to the author's real name, but it's not the author's real name and I didn't see it on the user Talk page.

10. Outstanding?: 2

This article was interesting to read.

_______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Catherine Kwon (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I have edited my user Talk page to include my real name and added more information on this article. Thuy Le (talk)

1. Quality of Information: 1

- The most recent source is from 2007.

2. Article size: 2

- Didn't contribute the entire 15KB+, but the final size is enough, so I think that's okay.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

- Good subtopics

8. Writing: 1

- I don't thin all the acronyms are necessary; when they're onyl mentioned once there is no point and when they are mentioned again the reader still has to look back up to see what it stands for. Maybe only use a couple important ones.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

- Couldn't find the entire real name anywhere, buy username is close.

10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Rachel Candace Law (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! I have updated my references, added more information on this article, edited my user Talk page, and decided to omit some of the acronyms that I used. Thuy Le (talk)

1. Quality of Information: 2

Very descriptive, detailed, yet concise. Generally good article.

2. Article size: 2

Met the size requirement.

3. Readability: 2

Article is generally easy to read and understand, with good descriptions of information.

4. Refs: 1

Try to update with more recent sources.

5. Links: 1

Try to add 3-4 more links, it is possible.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

No comments, so no issue.

7. Formatting: 2

Maybe try to include pictures, but I understand if it is difficult to do so with this topic. Rest of the formatting looking okay.

8. Writing: 2

Easy to read and understand, good flow to the article.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

Username is used, and not real name.

10. Outstanding?: 2

Outstanding and novel article. _______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Akumar60 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! I have updated my references, in the process of adding my links to my page, and have edited my user Talk page. Thuy Le (talk)

1. Quality of Information: 2

This wikipedia incorporates the factual and encyclopedic information. It has a lot of detailed information and neatly organized. However, try to get more up to date resources. Most references are kind of old.

2. Article size: 1

The draft was completed after 7pm of November 18th. The draft was completed 12:00am of November 19th.

3. Readability: 2

The article was easy to read. I think it is very neatly organized to read.

4. Refs: 1

The reference is all from old date. The most recent one is from 2007. So try to find more secondary sources that are published recently.

5. Links: 2

There are links to other articles. But try to distribute equally throughout the entire article.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

There are no comments yet so no editing was done based on the comments.

7. Formatting: 2

The article's format was very organized. It follows the wikipedian style and has all the requirements.

8. Writing: 2

The sentence structure had no grammar issues and the flow was consistent.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

On the user talk page, I was not able to find your real name. But the user name was similar.

10. Outstanding?: 2

The article is novel and outstanding. I liked reading this one.

Total: 17 out of 20

Doyeon Koo (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! I have added more information on my article, updated my references, and edited my user Talk page. Thuy Le (talk)

Heart failure and compression stockings
The recent student contributions mentioned above seem to have added a note about the use of compression stockings (in the Lifestyle changes section). However, my understanding is that nocturia associated with redistribution of edema is often due to (right-sided) heart failure, for which compression stockings are contraindicated unless investigation finds another cause for the edema. How should we clarify this? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Change in link needed from "third spacing" to "Third Space"
Well-written article but there is a problem with the link in the paragraph listed below going to the wrong place:

paragraph from article: Management[edit] Lifestyle changes[edit] Although there is no cure for nocturia, there are many actions people can take to manage their symptoms. Prohibiting the intake of caffeine and alcohol has helped some individuals with the disorder.[1] Compression stockings may be worn through the day to prevent fluid from accumulating in the legs, causing less urinary output, unless their use is contraindicated due to heart failure. Drugs that increase the passing of urine can help decrease the  *{third spacing}*   of fluid, but they could also increase nocturia. A common action patients take is to not consume any fluids hours before bedtime, which especially helps people with urgency incontinence.[10] However, a study on this showed that it reduced voiding at night by only a small amount and is not ideal for managing nocturia in older people.[10] For people suffering from nocturnal polyuria, this action does not help at all because of irregular AVP levels and the inability to respond with the inhibition of increased voiding. Fluid restriction also does not help people who have nocturia due to gravity-induced third spacing of fluid because fluid is mobilized when they lie in a reclining position.[citation needed] end paragraph from article

the term "third spacing", which I have marked with *{}* to help find it, re-directs the reader to the wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_compartments#Third_spacing

when instead it should re-direct the reader to to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_compartments#Third_space

In reading the nocturia article I followed the re-direction link and became confused, not finding anything that made sense with what I had been reading at the new location on "third spacing" that defined what or where the "third spacing" is. If another link also went to "third space", which includes the definition of what the third space is, everything makes perfect sense. Use the other link to "third space" or include the second link and all will be well. Thank you! Linstrum (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Article is too confident
One of the more notable discoveries occurred in 2012: [Involvement of urinary bladder Connexin43 and the circadian clock in coordination of diurnal micturition rhythm http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1812?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20120501]. This seems to be a more promising angle, and I added a review on it just now. Still, I didn't get into the details of mentioning connexin43. Also, there's no solid cure; seems a bit weird for the article to talk as if this disease is super well understood... the article talks about the second primary cause being "vesical" problems but there's no elaboration on what that means. II | (t - c) 19:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)