Talk:Aicardi–Goutières syndrome

note

Aicardi-Goutieres syndrome shouldn't redirect to Aicardi Syndrome. The last line of the history section of Aicardi Syndrome states, "Aicardi syndrome should not be confused with Aicardi-Goutières syndrome, a distinct disorder." 167.73.110.8 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)anonresearcher

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. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The goal of this assignment was a broad overview of Aicardi-Goutieres Syndrome. --LDNeurobio (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article is very well written and flows well together. It is definitely one of the better articles that I have read from our class in that it doesn't get bogged down with terms and it is an easy read for a non-biology educated "normal" person to read. There might be some mechanical/grammatical errors. I would suggest to be careful with linking the same word twice as I think that Wikipedia tends to link words only once, as is the case in the "autosomal recessive" link (linked 3 times). Also, I might revise most of the headings to be more direct and reduce level of redundancy:

Simply "History" instead of "history of the disease" as it is obvious that it is of the disease.

Simply "Symptoms" because including "signs" is a bit redundant and arbitrary

"Diagnosis" and "misdiagnosis" might fall under diagnosis as a subheading.

In conclusion, you have a good start to a well written article. MACKXIMUS (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. We have gone through and fixed the grammatical errors. Signs and symptoms are different. Signs is a physical manifestation while symptoms are how a person feels. It is a subtle point. The categories of "Diagnosis" and "Misdiagnosis" help to separate the paragraphs make it flow. We did change "History of the Disease." Thanks for the suggestions LDNeurobio (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall the article was very well written and very informative.

1. Well written: The article is well written and broken down very clearly to make it easier to understand to readers who are not familiar with the disease. Although readers who may not be very knowledgeable in the scientific field can understand most of the information there are some terms that could be explained more in dept so that the readers can gain a better understanding about the disease.

2. Verifiability: The information used in the article was throughout supported with evidence, and the references were correctly cited. I verified reference 9: "Aicardi-Goutieres Syndrome". Genetics Home Reference. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2013-02-26. The information taken from this article was well summarized and correctly cited.

3. Broad in coverage: The article covers all the areas in depth, and the information flows very cohesively. Also each category is thoroughly explained and all the information collected relates to the topic: Aicardi-Goutieres Syndrome.

4. Neutral: The article is neutral overall. Does not contain any bias information.

5. Illustration: Images of brain scans of the disease would be very helpful and would provide a better sense of understanding of how the disease physically effects the brain.

--Tayaba.ahmad (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)tayaba.ahmad

Thank you for your review of our article. We are reviewing the article for missed grammatical mistakes and looking for areas where additional links to other pages may be added. Our goal is to make this an informative and easy to understand article. In addition, as many reviewers have suggested, we have added an image of basal ganglia calcifications.ECBMilwaukee (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall I think this was a very well written entry. Apart from the misplaced comma from time to time, I found the language to be understandable and, most importantly, well balanced between scientific and 'lay' speak. Another couple read-throughs of the article will, I think, catch any grammatical mistakes easily enough.

As far as sources are concerned, I think the article is supported by a good number of citations that are well distributed. The sources themselves seem to be strong, non-primary sources that contribute to the article. I read through the British Medical Bulletin article, Aicardi–Goutières syndrome, and found that the article does a good job of summarizing and conveying the findings. It may be worth including the article's specific suggested therapy, despite them being not necessarily standard, accepted treatments, as it appears the article does not cover many of them.

The page is broken down into useful and rational categories that are all well supported with information. Again, I think there is an excellent balance between simplistic language that explains complex ideas, which makes the article easy to read and understand for most people and does not require prior knowledge or education in the subject.

It may be helpful to include some scans in the neuro category that show the characteristic white matter abnormalities. I appreciated the tables, as they both provided useful information and broke up the article into more than just text.

The article did a good job of being objective and unbias, however I think certain sentences, like the last one, "Hopefully new treatment will become available in time as doctors and scientists study and learn more about the disease," may be perhaps reworded to be more formal.

All in all, I believe this article to be excellent, with the few exceptions of informal diction and the occasional grammatical mistake. A few glances over the article again should solve these. --Riegern (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent review of our article. We are searching for grammatical errors and will do our best to fix them, in order to make this an easy to read and informative article. We have added more information to the treatment section, from the Orseci article. As suggested by several reviewers, we have added an image to our article. I agree with your suggestion that the last sentence was inappropriate for the article and it has been removed. We will work to include this information in a more formal manner.ECBMilwaukee (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

It is a great article which covers almost everything that the readers need to know. I will break down my review into sections of criteria that are needed to be examined.

1. Well written : The article is well written. It is easy to understand for readers that not familiar with the disease. While maintaining its understandability for readers(that have no knowledge of the disease), the word choice and language used are formal. There are a couple awkward sentences in the article, but overall it is well written.

2. Verifiability: The facts provided in the article are well supported with evidence. The references cited in a correct format. I verified reference No.9, "Aicardi-Goutieres Syndrome" from Genetics Home Reference, which was retrieved from the website of U.S. National Library of Medicine. The facts provided are consistent with the facts from the reference.

3. Broad in coverage: The article provided a wide range of facts for its readers. Every categories in the article is relevant and consistent with the topic.

4. Neutral: The article is written in a non-bias way and is neutral overall.

5. Illustration: It will be better if images of brain scans of the disease and pictures of physical defect causes by the disease(if any) are provided in the article.

Overall, it is a great article, Good job guys. Mickey0987 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We have added an image of basal ganglia calcifications to our article, as suggested by many reviewers. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article flows very well and the scope of information covered within it is quite broad. Having reviewed "Aicardia-Goutieres Syndrome" as source number four, it is both an appropriate secondary source and used properly in-text. This article is also particularly useful with regard to numerical physical data. Paraphrasing is done effectively as well, direct quotations seem to be avoided as per the guidelines of this assignment. The article could benefit from visual images, in the form perhaps of a CT scan or MRI of one suffering from Aicardia-Goutieres syndrome. Perhaps consider adding a "See also" category as most Wiki articles contain this (related diseases might be relevant to place here).

• In 1984, Jean Aicardi and Francoise Goutieres described eight children from five families presenting with sever early onset encephalopathy.
  • Make sure to add an e to sever

(ThrowTheBar2 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for your review of our article. We fixed the spelling error described in you review. Thank you for pointing it out! As suggest by many reviewers, we have added an image to our article. We decided not to add a "see also" category to our article because we feel the related diseases section in the article is sufficient. Instead we will work to improve this section of the article by adding more links. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Great article! It is very well put together. Here is what I think could be improved: I noticed that under ‘Signs and Symptoms’, the sentence “As a result, patients often have severe cognitive and motor defects” seems to be a bit out of order. Where it is now implies that the babies presenting startling in response to stimuli leads to cognitive and motor defects. That would be pretty terrible. Under 'Genetics' there is a leftover ‘sources:’ that should probably be removed. Finally, the last sentence under ‘Treatment’ seems a little out of place. Though I am sure no one wants progress in treatments to fail, it is subjective. Other than that, you guys did a spectacular job. Alphabetfood (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We made changes to the signs and symptoms section to make it more clear. As suggested by other reviewers as well, we have removed the last sentence of the treatment section.ECBMilwaukee (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Great article. I thought you covered every aspect of Aicardi-Goutieres Syndrome. One suggestion would be to move the treatment section to number three. People who stumble upon your article might use it for a diagnosis rather than an encyclopedia. By changing the format it will cater to those people. --Gigs4 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We believe that treatment, however, is most logically placed at the end of the article. We do not think people should ever be using wikipedia articles for diagnosis. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

secondary review

most of my suggestions have already been said before. Reading through your article was relatively easy and straight-forward. There was a grammatical error here and there, but nothing that wouldn't be caught by reading through the article a few more times. Some of the terminology, which understandable to science majors, may not be straight-forward to others. While reading through the article, try to either link or explain any terms used that are not explicitly understandable. something like cerebral calcification may need to be explained a little more in depth. that being said, these unexplained terms are few and far between. the sources were very well used. they all seem to contributed relatively equally and efficiently. they seem to be secondary sources with verifiable information. the breakdown of the sections was clear and fluid. the charts were somewhat helpful but I would suggest some with more information or even some images to illustrate the information you are providing. the tone of the article was neutral and objective. the article is very well done with just a few improvements that need to be made. Sammyt21 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We have added another picture and are in the processing of reviewing grammar and adding more links. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well- written: The article is well written. It is easy to follow and understand for readers who may not know much about the disease. There is a good balance between scientific words and “plain” words. There are a few missing comas but after reading over a few more times they should all be corrected. 2. Verifiable with no original research: The article uses a good amount of sources. The sources seem all be non-primary. The read through the ^ Online 'Mendelian Inheritance in Man' (OMIM) Aicardi–Goutieres syndrome -225750, this article does a great job summarizing the findings. The article did a good job highlighting the major points in this article. 3. Broad in coverage: The article is well organized and “flows”. The subheadings are labeled in a way that readers will easy be able to find the information they are looking for. 4. Neutral: the article is written in an unbiased manner. 5. Illustration: The scans showing white matter abnormalities would be a good thing to include. I do like the table the article that helps present the findings in an easy way. Overall, I think the article is great. It is easy to read and has a good balance between scientific and “plain” words. Marqyank27 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of our article. We are continuing to review it ourselves and look for grammatical mistakes. Hopefully, they will all be found and fixed soon. As suggested by many reviewers, our article now includes an image of basal ganglia calcifications. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, this is a well written article. As mentioned by other reviewers, a great way to improve the article is to reword some of the sentences (primarily the very first section/introduction), or to further explain what certain terms mean. Although someone with a science background may understand what is being said, Wikipedia is open to anyone and everyone, and they may not know what they just read. The article provided good links for the science terms onto other Wikipedia pages, but the viewer probably doesn't want to get lost in continually looking up what terms mean to put together what is being said in the original article. Otherwise, the article seemed to be well written and displayed a good flow (there were a few places within the article I would fix grammatically or with punctuation, but nothing big). There are an appropriate amount of sections that the topic branched off into and they provided useful information as well. Great work! Raziffra (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The intro has been redone. LDNeurobio (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The article is very well written, especially the introduction. It does a good job introducing the condition, and various aspects about it. The whole article flows very well, and does a great job explaining the condition in layman's terms. I would suggest that a picture would spruce up the article a bit, but I'm not sure if one is available for this condition (I had the same problem with my article, and ended up putting in a picture of the man who discovered the disease). Andersonmatt1125 (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of our article. It took quite a bit of searching, but we were able to find an image to include in our article. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Very professional look and writing style. The content is presented in a clear and readable manner with plenty of links to anything that someone might not understand. I would suggest adding some pictures of the lesions or any observable physical symptoms to the diagnosis and symptoms area of the article. In the signs and symptoms section the sentence " Good auditory functioning and the lack of retinal abnormalities can be useful in differential diagnosis." could be explained for its significance. How is it useful in differentiating between diseases and maybe what diseases can be distinguished? In the same section the passage "The babies also present startling in response to stimuli, known as the “startle reaction.”[4] As a result, patients often have severe cognitive and motor defects." how does a startling effect or reaction lead to cognitive or motor defects? Egreaga (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We have made the necessary changes to the signs and symptoms paragraph and added a picture to our article. ECBMilwaukee (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Faculty Review

This is a very informative article on a rare disorder. I like that you were able to find information on the genetics of the disease. I fixed a few minor typos. I also re-arranged the diagnostic criteria section. It seemed a bit out of order. I think a bit more cleaning up could be done in that section but at least it is in the right order now. MMBiology (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)