Talk:Paroxysmal dyskinesia

note
This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. The revised article will be posted by March 22, 2013. Please leave any comments on sources or information you would like to see on this topic. Bzastrow (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Goal of our contributions to the article: There is not a good amount of secondary review information available for Paroxysmal dyskinesia, so our goal was to compare and contrast the different subtypes of the disease, as well as give an overview of the disease. Daner33 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Considering the amount of information needed to be covered in this article, you have done a good job, but in some sections, it gets a bit difficult to read cohesively. I think that this article would benefit from a stronger introduction/summary instead of one sentence just to orient the reader. I don't think wikipedia typically links words more than once, as is in the case of "chorea," athetosis," and "dystonia," and I don't think "diagnosis" should be linked since the meaning here is obvious. The article is a good start and seems to cover the basics of a well-written article. MACKXIMUS (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! You, as well as many other users, have suggested the inclusion of an introduction, and that is definitely going to happen. In addition, the order of sections and paragraphs is going to be arranged which will hopefully help with reading the article. We want to make sure that it reads smoothly and accurately. I am also going to go through and make sure that no words are repeated. Thanks again for the review, we are going to take all of the advice you offered. Bzastrow (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Review: Diagnosis and treatment of paroxysmal dyskinesias revisited. Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders
The title of the page should be paroxysmal dyskinesiaS. And the epidemiology section is unnecessary. I think that you can put that information in diagnosis or in the introduction.You will also need to add more citations - some paragraphs have none at all (like the one in causes/pathology).

PKD sections: The information listed in diagnosis, clinical signs and symptoms, and different forms of PD seem repetitive. I would combine signs and symptoms with different forms and leave diagnosis to age of onset. Also PKD is not always caused by sudden voluntary movements because it can be triggered by hyperventilating – better to leave it as sudden movements.

PNKD sections: The article does not say specifically that MR-1 is a detoxifying agent but that it is homologous to one. I think that the main point of the BK mutation is that it allows for rapid repolarization of action potentials not necessarily to elicit more action potentials. Again, I would combine sections because it is very repetitive. Also you should mention the age of onset and the fact that attacks tend to diminish with age.

PED sections: Some parts can be rearranged. For example, mutations in GLUT1 is listed in the different forms sections but should probably be listed in causes like in the other sections (unless you decide to combine these sections). Age of onset is not mentioned (which is usually in childhood). Also very repetitive.

Overall, I think the information is there, it just needs to be rearranged and the sections need to be consistent. For example, in some cases you have the three sections separated (like in diagnosis and causes/pathology) but it is not separated in management or different forms. The prognosis section also does not flow well with the article. You mention PKC, but without reading the primary article, no one will know what PKC is or what it stands for. And because there is some overlap between the different types, a brief intro into PD can be mentioned in the beginning giving some general info as to what is may be helpful. I would also add more links. I like that there are comparisons between them throughout the article, it lets people see that they may sound alike but there are differences between the types of PD. Lastly, some words are capitalized when they shouldn’t be so just look through it again and I’m sure you will catch them (The Three main, Use of Anticonvulsants, etc…)

KSirWillis (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! As for the changes you suggested, most of them were indeed followed through on. I moved the first half of the Epidemiology section to the introduction, and the rest of it to Diagnosis. The repeated facts from section to section are also being removed, and kept in the Signs/Symptoms section. The facts that were presented incorrectly have also been changed to reflect the correct information. That was a very big contribution that will greatly help the article! Lastly, the grammar is being taken care of. A point of disagreement to be made, however, is concerning the combination of the Different Subtypes section and the Clinical Signs and Symptoms. I do not think that combining these two sections would be useful, since the Different Subtypes section is present to introduce the subtypes, while the Clinical Signs and Symptoms section will be used to further distinguish between the three. I will, however, make sure to remove any repetition between the sections. Thanks again for the review, it was incredibly helpful! Bzastrow (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No verification of a source in this review. MMBiology (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This is a difficult article to write due to the varieties of disorders that need to be addressed. I believe you've done an excellent job of ordering them in a logical and helpful way, but I would suggest you make it uniform in all the sections- that is to say, make the final management section match the others. Other than that, I believe you've done a very good job of explaining the similarities and the differences of the different disorders, which may be the most daunting task faced. Citations appear to be in order as well and the article is written in simplistic terms but explains well complex ideas. With the small adjustments to produce uniformity, I believe this could be an excellent article indeed. --Riegern (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The changes you suggested to create more uniformity have been made. Thanks for your review and your contribution! Bzastrow (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Great job on the article as a whole! There was a lot of information to cover in this topic and I think you organized it nicely. I would like to see more information in the opening paragraph. A summary would be nice, rather than having to read the whole article to get the main ideas of the article. More links would also improve the article. For example rather than describing what a dominant allele is, "A dominant allele is a specific gene segment which has a higher chance of being expressed," there could just be a link to the article for dominant allele. I also think that there should be a source for ".. few cases have shown that patients were able to lessen their attacks with a sugary snack." ECBMilwaukee (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review! We already added more information to the introduction, that I think would suffice for the suggested changes you made. I also went ahead and removed that sentence about an allele and linked it out to the allele Wikipedia page. Thanks again for the contribution. Bzastrow (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
First thing I would say would be to link out more. There are some complex terms in here. That's definitely fine, and as this is an encyclopedia you don't need to go into detail explaining them if they're not isolated to your topic, but providing the link for anyone who doesn't understand a concept already would be good. It would also be good to have some sources for the first paragraph of Causes/Pathology. The second sentence of the opening line of Diagnosis could probably be worded differently. A picture or two (if you can find something that fits) would also help as a bit of a counterpoint to the technical nature of the article. As other users have mentioned, a quick read-over may help with some minor capitalization issues. Overall though, I think the article has a lot of good information, and you guys did a great job of making clear distinctions and explanations of the different subtypes. I liked how the different sections were split up in similar ways. Xc stallion92 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You were the first person to really suggest adding more links, so I went through and found numerous links that could be added. As a group, we tried to find pictures, however, to no avail. The other technical errors that you pointed out and suggested were made. Thanks for the review and your contribution! Bzastrow (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Great job on the article. One thing I noticed about wiki articles is that a strong and detailed introduction can make an article great. I would take most of the information in "the different forms of Paroxysmal dyskinesia section" and move it to the introduction. Although this may seem like a big change I believe it will make your article better. If you choose not to take my advice, at a minimum I would:

-Take "The paroxysmal dyskinesias are mainly classified by their triggers and on the basis of the duration and frequency of the attacks. The Three main types are paroxysmal kinesigenic dyskinesias (PKD), paroxysmal non-kinesigenic dyskinesias (PNKD) and paroxysmal exercise-induced (exertion-induced) dyskinesias (PED)" and make it your introduction.

Also, definitely link out more. --Gigs4 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the introduction was changed. We realized that soon after posting the article. Few more links will be added as well. Thanks for the review!Daner33 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I thought this article was organized and written very well. The one thing I really liked about the article was that different forms: PKD, PNKD, and PED are separated so clearly that anyone just skimming the article has see there are different subgroups for each subheading. The only issue I have is the intro to the article. Most readers will just read the intro to get the info they are looking for. There is no intro to this article, I would just briefly summarize the article in one or two paragraphs to explain what the article is about to a reader.Marqyank27 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed the article. And yes the intro has been changed. Thanks for the review!Daner33 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article is well written and the organization is logical. There are no apparent spelling or grammar errors. Also, the sources seem to be cited and referenced properly. I enjoyed reading this article as I have never heard of these disorders before. However, I will say that the authors used a lot of scientific words that could become confusing to an individual that does not have any scientific background. Adding more links to these words would help this issue. There was also some repetition throughout the article. Though, I believe this repetition was necessary given the complexity of the topic. I think more information should be added to the introduction. Also, providing information about those most affected by these disorders would be a nice addition. Great job!! SewellBio (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you enjoyed the article. All of the changes that you mention have been changed. However, the one problem was that we could not find enough information about the individuals most affected by the disorder. PD is a very rare disorder, so not too many scientific articles have been published about it. Thanks a lot for the review!Daner33 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The article is well written, and clearly explains the condition. It is neutral, and seems to contain good information. I especially like the section that discuses the different forms of the disease. It is very clear, and really helps get a base before going deeper into the article. I also like how many sections are split, and refer to PKD, PNKD, and PED separately, as they seem to be very different. I think it would be nice if some of the sources could be edited to be links to the actual information if they are available online.

The article could use an introduction paragraph, just to give the reader a summary of the condition, and a few key facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersonmatt1125 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We have had many complaints about the introduction and it has been dealt with. As well, I will be working on the sources in order to get the links to the actual articles. Thank you very much for the review! Daner33 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article is written well, has correct grammar and spelling, and is relatively easy to read and extract meaning from. As some of the other reviewers have said, more of the article could be moved to the introduction so that the reader does not have to read as far in to the article to get more than the most basic idea. One of the things that could be added to the introduction is something mentioning the significance of the person being conscious. Perhaps you could add a phrase like, "as opposed to movements without intact consciousness like those associated with epilepsy." A more detailed description of some of these hyperkinetic movements would also provide the reader with a better idea of the condition without them having to read so much.3076mengfrp (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We have had many complaints about the introduction and it has been dealt with. Although we don't feel the need to go into more detail about the hyperkinetic movements since they do have wiki links, and I believe giving more detail about each different specific movement will cause the article to not flow as well. But I appreciate your review and your comments. Thank you very much! Daner33 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well written: The article needs some work regarding its format and word choice. As mentioned by other reviewers, utilizing the ability to "link" more complex or scientific terms would be useful, along with a simplified explanation of what the word means. Keep in mind that when viewers are reading a page on Wikipedia, they want to find clear and quick information. In terms of format, there are some inconsistencies. I like the idea that the three types of PD are described separately to show differences, but this isn't consistent for each new section. For example, changing the format of the "Management" to look like the "Clinical Signs and Symptoms" section. Also, a little more in the introduction/top of the page would be beneficial so that the reader won't have to read further down to find more basic information.

2. Verifiability: The content within this page is good. There seems to be a good amount of sources with reliable information that this page used. As mentioned above, using more links can only improve the article and use more references to other Wikipedia pages.

3. Broad in coverage: This topic has many sections that go into a good amount of specificity and the article as a whole gives a good understanding of PD. Some of the sections in this page have repetitive information, and therefore, certain sections can be either combined. For example, some information regarding PKD in the "Different Forms" section is repeated in the following "Clinical Signs and Symptoms" section. The different forms are explained based on their signs and symptoms. To get rid of repetition, maybe these sections can work as a single cohesive section.

4. Neutral: This page does a good job of remaining neutral and not showing any sort of bias or opinion.

5. Illustration: Along with many other pages for this project (including my own page), no illustrations were provided. A good illustration to include here could be somehow showing how the muscles are affected or function differently (with the disease) compared to a normal muscle; include an image showing an atypical picture of muscles (one affected with a form of PD)

Overall, the article included interesting and useful information. Fixing the format and providing more links would enhance the page. Good work! Raziffra (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is being read over and word choice is being improved as well as wiki links being added. Introduction and formatting has also been changed. We have had complaints about the repetitive descriptions in the different section, so we have added most of the info into the clinical signs and symptoms section, and only left the necessary details in the other sections. As for illustration, there are few images that are online that we can use for the article. However, we are still keeping an eye out for good, informative images that will help the article. Thanks a lot for the review. You were extremely helpful! Daner33 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review
As a whole I think you are on the right track with the research and source gathering. You cover several topics including descriptions of the disease, its symptoms, and how to diagnose it, but I feel like you could combine a few of the sections so you don't reexplain that it is a movement disorder in all of your sections. I think the writing style could be changed to a more scientific and less of an English paper feel. You don't need to use fancy vocabulary or have fancy sentence structure to present the facts. Simply reference the sources and provide the information in straight forward short sentences.

The intro paragraph is pretty short and you use large words "hyperkinesis" that people probably don't know off the top of their head. Linking the terminology or changing it into more basic terms will help people understand your basic description.

In the clinical signs and symptoms, you use a lot of anatomical descriptions like unilateral and bilateral which might not be the simplest way of describing the condition. Simplify it by saying, when more than one limb is affected, the two limbs are usually unilateral, on the same side of the body. This helps simplify and explain some of the terminology so you can use it later. In the same section but PED category, you use "cessation of exercise". Its a great vocab word, but it might not be the best word for the style of writing. Simplify.

Epidemiology could probably be included in the diagnosis.

Your references are cited in the article, but they are not linked in the references section which makes it difficult to find and review your sources.

The biggest thing I think it is missing is a defined section that covers the anatomical or physiological cause or deficiency in the system that leads to this disease. It is briefly mentioned in a few places but it is pretty important to the understanding of the condition and could probably warrant its own section.

Egreaga (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is your verification of one of the sources?MMBiology (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well written: Overall, the article is well written, with a consistency in style that makes it seem as though one author wrote it. That being said, there are a few issues that could be worked on in terms of organization that could make it flow better. At the very top of the article, it would be nice to have the overall summary be a little longer in length, so that if someone were to just casually browse the page they could have a brief understanding of the topic without needing to read the entire article. There are some mild grammatical errors sprinkled throughout that will need to be edited, such as unnecessary capitalization (eg The Three main types), use of comma (eg heat or, menstruation), and spacing, such as the extra line break before PED under the Causes/Pathology subsection. Not intending to be a Grammar Nazi, but these are all simple mistakes that are easy to overlook but if addressed will really make the article seem polished. Aside from that, the article is written in scientific language and is very comprehensive in nature.

2. Verifiability: There is a lot of content within this article, all of which seems to be obtained from secondary sources and cited well. I chose to look at your fourth cited source, "Analyzing clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of Paroxysmal Dyskinesia." The information obtained from this article was used in an appropriate manner that and was used throughout the entire article. Each citation was attributed properly, and it was easy to go back to the article and find where the information was from. Under the Diagnosis section of your article, perhaps you could include the sentence "Physical examination and brain imaging examinations show normal results, and EEG shows no specific abnormality as well." in the top area instead of repeating it three separate times. While treatment is touched upon under your Management section, it would be nice to include the Treatment and Clinical Outcome section of the secondary source article. There is lots of data there that could be incorporated into a graph illustration or table that would compliment the article. In addition, perhaps under your Causes/Pathology section, you could include the information from the Discussion regarding how possible pathogenesis might be associated with abnormal GABA systems, which explains why treatment with benzodiazepines seem to have a good effect.

You may want to revise your quotation under Clinical Signs and Symptoms, PKD, where you quote your third source: For example, “Her attacks..." I do remember Dr. Mynlieff saying that research papers are rarely directly quoted in the scientific community, which is what you chose to do here. Instead, I would try to synthesize the information into your paragraph, by removing the "her," and writing it as more of a statement than a direct quote. From what I understand, as long as the information is properly attributed, there is no need to directly quote the content.

3. Broad in Coverage: This article follows the "encyclopedia" format of being broad in coverage, without going deep into the minutia of the disorder. I like how the three main subsets of Paroxysmal dyskinesia were selected and elaborated on under each section. After looking at many articles on disorders and diseases on Wikipedia, they all typically seem to follow the format of Signs and Symptoms, Pathology, Diagnosis, and Management, which is the format that your group decided to take here. Having read in your goal that there were little secondary sources on this topic, it seems that you guys worked very well with the sources you were able to obtain, and accomplished your goal of comparing and contrasting the various subtypes of the disease, as well as giving an overview. As far as overview goes, it would be nice to have a little lengthier of a summary at the top of the page for a casual reader that doesn't want to read the entire article in depth.

4. Neutral: Your article is written in a very neutral tone that follows an encyclopedic format. There seems to be no indication of bias or opinion inserted throughout the text.

6. Illustrated: There was not an illustration included in this article, a common theme for many of the articles created under this assignment. Understandably, it is hard to find an image to illustrate the specific content of your article, but perhaps consider creating a graph that shows the percentage of people carrying the various subtypes of the disorder, a Venn diagram visually comparing and contrasting symptoms, or an image that compares a normal muscle to one with paroxysmal dyskinesia. The first two would be very easy to create in Excel and be eligible for upload to the Wikipedia Commons. An addition of an image would add that extra polish to your article entry.

Overall, your group did a fine job creating your Wikipedia article. Everyone has different styles of writing, and your group did a great job of synthesizing all of the information together in a scholarly and uniform stylistic format. If your group takes a careful look over grammatical and formatting issues, how secondary sources are incorporated into the text, and considers the use of an illustration, there's no doubt that the article will be "A" quality. Great work! Noahgford (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Phenomenal review - one of the best I have read.MMBiology (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Faculty Review
You put a lot of interesting and informative information into your article. I am a little confused as to the role of MR-1 in this. You stated that it detoxifies methylglyoxal but I didn't find that information in a quick search. One thing your reviewers noted was a bit of redundancy. I think you cleaned up a lot along the way but there is another way you could "shorten" it. Separating out the three disorders in each section is informative but maybe it would be possible to start each section with a general segment pertaining to all three and follow up with what is specific to each subtype.

I have done some editing to clean it up a bit. However, many of those edits should have been caught by your team. For example you typed PKC and PKG in place of PKD in places. Also, be careful about naming drugs. You talk about anticonvulsants and then specifically name benzodiazepines and clonazepam. Benzodiazepines are used as anticonvulsants (among other things) and clonazepam is a type of benzodiazepine. If you are unfamiliar with a drug or class of drug, make sure you look it up.

You also did not respond to two of your primary reviewers. The last review was particularly detailed and insightful. If you had looked at these you would have caught a number of the items I edited later. MMBiology (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)