Talk:Pharmacological treatment of Parkinson's disease

Classmate revisions
Hi. Before I even started reading over your article to review it, I noticed right away that it isn’t hyperlinked to any other pages until you get to the examples section. I would try to hyperlink many terms throughout your page to improve the clarity for readers. For example, you could and should probably hyperlink terms like “Parkinson’s disease,” “dopamine,” “central nervous system,” and other terms that the general public may not be entirely familiar with. Overall, I think you definitely have some good info in your article, and just hyperlinking terms will drastically improve your article. Good luck! MSederberg21 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After reading your introduction, I think your article could benefit by expanding this section to give a stronger and more thorough overview. Maybe try to include a general statement that includes the relative success rates of antiparkinson drugs, or whether or not these drugs are the “go to” treatment for Parkinson’s disease patients. For example, I find myself asking how commonly antiparkinson drugs are prescribed, and whether other approaches for treatment are used first.
 * Again, include hyperlinks in this section. You included many terms that I am unfamiliar with, and as a reader I want to be able to click on them to understand the terms before I continue reading. Otherwise, I think this section of the article is good, assuming you think that you thoroughly covered the disease (I am not an expert on Parkinson’s disease, and haven’t researched it much, so I don’t know how thorough your coverage is or if you are missing any key components).
 * Your common antiparkinson drugs section appears to be pretty thorough, assuming you hyperlink many of the terms.
 * Your Examples section confuses me because I am unsure what is being covered. Are these more examples of antiparkinson drugs? If so, include an introductory sentence explaining that, or retitle this section something like “less notable examples.” Also, the multiple bullet points before examples is confusing and distracting. Overall, I think you just need to restructure this entire section and explain better what everything means.
 * I would also suggest adding a section that covers the downsides and success rates for these drugs. Are there harmful side effects associated with these drugs? Have they come under criticism from healthcare professionals or the media for any reason? Do any of them result in particularly strong alleviation of symptoms? Also, what are the long-term effects of these drugs? Do any of them result long-term alleviation of symptoms. These are some of the questions that I found myself asking after reading through your article.

This is a good article, I found it interesting to read. Just a few quick suggestions, nothing too major. 1. In the Parkinson's disease section the first line should read: results in the loss of... 2. In the Parkinson's disease section that second paragraph could be reorganized in order to put the Lewy body information at the bottom and you could talk about the mutations first in that paragraph. 3. In the L-DOPA section the first line should read C-L can (get rid of is) 4. In the L-DOPA section, the phrase that reads if this medication shows improvement... is a little misleading. The medication does not actually show the improvement. Instead, I would reword it to say, If this medication leads to improvements in the patient's symptoms 5. In the Deprenyl section, what does the enzyme MAO-B have to do with Parkinson's disease? What is it specific role? This could be expanded upon. 6. IN the Apomorphine section, you could further explain what an agonist does, and how that specifically works in this example. 7. Over all from the article, I didn't get how acetylcholine fits into the disease of Parkinson's. This could be made more clear, possibly explaining it in that beginning Parkinson's disease section.

Good work! Shelbtrav (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think your opening could benefit a ton just by adding a few more interesting/general facts here. Maybe about success rates, etc? You want something that will really grab the reader and make them interested. Your section on Parkinson’s disease is really well developed, I would simply suggest adding hyperlinks for example to the basal ganglia incase the reader were more interested to figure out what that is. The drugs and future of antiparkinson is excellent  The examples section needs a lot of help just getting it better organized. There are a lot of the bullet points that simply don’t need to be there. Also, give a little background on each to see what they are so you don’t have to click on each one maybe? Overall, excellent job. Anna jurgens (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Examples section
I fixed the formatting and removed some double or erroneous bullets. I do not possess major knowledge on this subject, so it would be beneficial if somebody who does can take a look. I'm not sure this section should even be here in this format. Creating a complete table such as the one in the Muscarinic antagonist article might be a better alternative, at the least a richer alternative. --Bubbly (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)