Talk:Bing–Neel syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Student Editing Bing-Neel syndrome page for class project

Three other students and myself are working on editing this Bing-Neel syndrome page for a class. We will be making edits to the information that was already present, adding new information and correcting errors that were on the pre-existing page. Some of the content from the original page has been incorporated into the new information we have added. The goal of this project is to take a subtopic, edit and build up the content of that page. To do this, we will expand upon the history, diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment of Bing-Neel syndrome. Due to the rarity of this diseases, the number of secondary sources is limited. As a result, we used some reviews and discussions of case studies. We welcome any constructive feedback on this talk page to improve the overall content of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondaporsh24 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Student BNS Review 2 (Secondary)

You start with a very complicated introduction. For the general public, it seems difficult to understand and read. I had to read it a few times and I'm still not sure I completely understand what BNS or WM is. In addition to the multiple scientific terms used, there is no explicit definition of BNS or WM. WM is hyperlinked to another wiki page, but a general statement would clear up some details. It is never actually stated what BNS is- I think your intro needs a simplified and concise definition before you lead in with symptoms, diagnoses, etc. There are many grammatical errors in the Symptoms section, along with a few misspelled words and fragmented sentences that need to be looked at again. In the Diagnosis section the word 'patient' is used multiple times. This is not allowed, nor is it allowed to use subjective words when talking about symptoms, like 'ailing the patient.' All 'patient' references need to be taken out. A more objective writing style needs to be used, where symptoms are stated in a list form with no reference to actual people. I also feel like the History section is out of place. It would make more chronological sense to add it after your Introduction and before your Symptoms section. Overall, the information is sound and I feel everything you need to say has been stated, but it would read better if some of the more scientific terms were taken out (or explained better) and the grammar issues were fixed. CarElizLup (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

When talking about a complex subject such as Bing-Neel Syndrome, it would help to be as concise as possible. One place this can be accomplished is in the symptoms section, where your group lists the symptoms in the paragraph itself. It might be better to place the symptoms as a list that is apart of the paragraph. This will make it easier for the reader to absorb the large amount of information without reading a wall of text. Another observation I had was to only list the shorthand term for a disorder (like BNS for Bing-Neel Syndrome) once, as the reader already knows from the earlier in the article what the shorthand mean. This also will help with the uniformity of your article, rather than appearing as different sections stitched together. Otherwise, good article!--BioEd53 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student secondary review

The introduction to the article is pretty hard to follow, though I understand that this disease is somewhat difficult to define due to its rarity. That being said, I'm not sure what the disease is actually. My take away was that the disease is primarily about increased blood viscosity and the complications of that condition. Beyond that, it gets a bit confusing. In the intro, BNS is stated to be a side effect of WM, but the symptoms section says BNS might arise without a history of WM. There is probably an easy way to reconcile these two statements, but it's an example of how ambiguous some of the writing gets. It might help to focus the article on BNS arising from WM only, this would allow you to focus on symptoms and treatments of just one form of the disease. Remember not to use the word "patients," Wikipedia doesn't like it. Overall, I think you all have done a good job and just need to touch up certain spots. Nathanneuro (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review--BNS

Overall, you did a good job with this topic. The different types of treatment for BNS was fully explained. You covered all your bases with the pathogenesis of the given disease, except I would consider adding in risk factors. Risk factors, if you can find enough data, would make a nice addition right before or after the symptoms section. When outlining the different tools use for diagnosis BNS, you simply have "utilization of different tools comparatively" can give a diagnosis. If you are going to add a section on the diagnosis, at least explain some detail about what these tools are. I would also add in a histology slide of the given cells if possible, or an mRI of an affected brain. The last sentence of the symptoms section seems out of place and can fit somewhere else within the section. Cwall511 (talk)) 02:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

I really learned a lot from the content of your article, great job! Couple of suggestions – (I think this was mentioned previously as well) but you should use the (BNS) of your article throughout the rest of it. This change should help a little with the flow of the article and make it seem like it’s all from one author. A couple of your sentences seem a little out of place. For example, the “symptoms” sections ends abruptly with “Where certain symptoms are present depends on which branch of the CNS is being affected.” I would suggest keeping an eye out for sentences like these and making the conclusion of the sections a little smoother. Try rewording this one! Overall, I think your content is great! A little but of grammatical editing and your page is in great shape. Neurosynn (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Student Reviewer

Overall, your group did a good job detailing this disorder. First and foremost, your group did well in providing a broad scope of all the information available on the topic. Though some sections could still be condensed, your group did a great job covering a difficult subject. Your group’s article was neutral, stable, and verifiable. The only major suggestion I had with the article was with some of the sentence structures in the text. On several occasions, some sentences are extremely wordy. Furthermore, your article contains many run-on sentences as well. For example, in the first paragraph under the section titled “Treatment,” the last sentence, “Doctors will make a risk assessment and make sure to monitor the patient by MRI to make sure these complications do not occur,” is incredibly wordy. More specifically, it contains the phrase “make sure” twice. This weakens your group’s writing and gives it a “choppy” vibe. I would recommend proofreading your entire article for similar sentences and rewrite the ones that come off as long, wordy, or confusing; on that note, in the second paragraph under the “Symptoms” section, remove the first comma in the second to last sentence. It has no place in being there, as there doesn’t need to be a break in the sentence at that point. Also, I agree with one of the other reviewers in that the history section should be moved. It would make the most sense for it to appear earlier on, rather than the end, as it contains background information on the disorder. Gloryrunner13 (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Gloryrunner13

Student BNS Review

Intro maybe include a brief description of WM in intro

History was the international workshop on WM where they came up with diagnostic criteria? Could be more specific here.

Symptoms need citation in first section, second paragraph has very long sentences. Could be split up so it is more clear. Maybe a table or list would be beneficial since there are so many? Did you also mean to use the word loss instead of lose when talking about memory loss, aphasia, loss of balance? Last sentence may sound better if reworded?

Sequence analysis Do you mean to say “if so” at the end of the sentence?

Treatment Certain path with a multitude of options sounds contradictory

Images Get rid of diseases DB on side- is it necessary to include/specific enough to BNS? Are there any images you could include? Maybe of WM?

Original Research no original research or data is present so good job.

Other questions I had regarding the topic Can people with BNS go into remission where symptoms stop for awhile? Does having BNS put people at risk for other disease/complications?

Source Verification: Castillo article It seems that the first sentence of the intro is nearly the same as the first sentence of this abstract yet it is not cited at the end of sentence. Not sure if you found the same info in the article that you actually cited at the end of the sentence but nonetheless I think they should both be cited. Also I would consider changing the wording up a little bit so it isn’t a direct copy. Looking at the abstract of this article, I think it could be beneficial to add some of the stats that they include, like the number of BNS patients who were also diagnosed with WM, to better link the two diseases/syndromes.

Overall I think the article encompasses the aspects of BSN that are necessary pretty well. Some parts could use a little revision in regards to flow and wording but I understood most of it. In regards to sourcing, just make sure you include all of the proper citations (especially to info that may be found in more than one source). Good job though!

MWStudent (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review Thank you so much for your feedback and we appreciate what you have said. We have decided to include a brief description of WM, we also found a eiki link, so readers can take a better look on that page. A table was added in the Symptoms section and some of the wordiness was taken out. We fixed the part in the intro where it seemed rather similar to the source and worded it a different way. Lastly, we just looked over the entire article to make sure grammar and phrasing were correct and concise. For all of your questions, we took a look and made note of what we found. Again, thank you! Paige MU (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student BNS Primary Review

Intro: The beginning of the paragraph is slightly confusing; the paragraph may flow better if there were more explanation of WM or cerebrospinal fluid hyperglobulinemia. Also, double check that singularity and plurality are kept consistent, for example it should say, “symptoms are diverse and nonspecific, and they can vary depending on which aspect of the CNS is being affected.”

Symptoms: If you don’t explain WM in the intro I would explain it here and discuss some of the similarities in symptoms. There are a lot of run-on sentences that make this part confusing, try breaking up some of the symptoms to alleviate the list of symptoms.

Diagnosis: The organization here is really well done for how confusing it actually could be

Treatment: I would eliminate some unnecessary words in the intro part; it sounds more of a paper here rather than a science article. Focus on getting to the facts.

History: Instead of “these group of people” it should be “this group of people.”

2. Many references present and cited well throughout the article. I would maybe add more in the treatment section since there is a lot of information without many references. No original research present and it does not sound plagiarized.

3. You kept most of the article broad with such an intricate topic. The history section is a little detailed, and may take away from the primary aspects of how the disease was originally found.

6. Adding images in the diagnosis section could be helpful in describing what one would see on an MRI in a patient with BNS. I am not sure what the link to the diseases DB is on the right, if you are to keep it I would explain what the link is underneath.

Source #3: Binge-Neel Syndrome Revisited, Fintelmann et al., 2009 This source is a reliable secondary source for medicine. Your citation appears to be correct, however where you cite it in your article could be expanded. The beginning of the source sounds similar to your history section so you may want to cite it there to avoid any plagiarism claims. Also, in your intro paragraph where you cite this source and talk about splitting patients into ‘Group A’ and ‘Group B,’ it may be necessary to say something like, ‘some scientist propose’ doing this because that is what they are proposing in the paper. In the intro it sounds like that is a common way to discuss the disease (if it is disregard this) but in the paper it makes it seem like it was just these authors’ idea. Kmeyer517 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review Hi, thanks for taking your time to review our article, it was greatly appreciated. In response to your review, we've peered over all sections of our article to ensure sentence structures are consistent throughout. We also added a brief description of WM in the introductory paragraph along with a hyperlink to the WM wiki page. We also tried to condense some sentences to increase fluidity as you suggested. In regards to adding images, we were unable to find any images that were specific and pertained to BNS. Lastly, we also sought to reword some sentences within our history section to alleviate any concerns of plagiarism. Again, thanks a lot for all of your feedback.Rschocke (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Student BNS Primary Review

Introduction

The sentence with “…and it can vary depending…”, followed by “they can include” is unclear what the “it” and “they” are referring to. Also, a previous sentence of “This increases blood…”, the “its” is unclear what “its” is referring to. The wording is a little complicated for a lay understanding. A brief sentence on WM may be helpful to readers. A sentence at the end concluding the introduction that also acts as a leeway for the following information may also be beneficial.

Symptoms

While this may be a picky detail, the first sentence may better be worded as “over the span of weeks to months” for a more professional sounding sentence. The sentence of “symptoms range in severity…” repeats nausea twice. Very nice to include brief descriptions of the characters!

Diagnosis

The first sentence is a little unclear. A sharpened wording along the lines of “meaning one diagnostic tool alone is not conclusive”. Histology - Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia does not have to spelled out again since it was already made clear in the introduction it would further be referred to as WM. Same with Bing-Neel Sydnrome. CSF analysis - The last sentence of the first paragraph is unclear. Is it supposed to be “parameters assed by”? Radiology - Interesting!Sequence analysis - Should the last sentence say “if so, …”? I’m not sure if stating PCR amplification is how it is done is necessary to get your point across.

Treatment

Steroids - It is unclear what “it” is referring to. If it is steroids, the wording should be “They provide”. Chemotherapy - Very interesting! Stem-Cells -The paragraph may benefit from explaining how the stem-cell transplant works. Radiation. The first sentence should be “Lastly, …”. What does the Gy mean? Maybe explain to the readers.

History

WM can be abbreviated instead of spelled out. One of the last sentences should be “this group of people” rather than “these group of people”.

Article

“Novel diagnostic approaches in Bing-Neel syndrome”, Reference 3. The second sentence of the abstract in the reference seems to be plagiarized in the opening paragraph of the article page. The reference is a secondary reference with clear indication of how they gathered the information for the review. It is also relevant to the Wikipedia article and well chosen for the diagnostic section of the article. The reference did however have the neurological diagnostic tools listed that are possible to use for BNS, but in the article not all of these are included. The reference is cited appropriately when the information is used in the Wikipedia article.

General notes

The following are some general notes I observed. I apologize if some of the details of my review appear fairly small, minor qualms. Overall, good job and I have just a few suggestions. Be careful with the wording of sentences to make sure they flow well. The Wikipedia editor had commented on my article to always include citations at the end of each paragraph. A few of your paragraphs are missing this component. For the most part the article is broad in coverage and did accomplish what you said on your talk page about what you were aiming to do with the article. I do not have a suggestion for where a picture may be placed, but if you find an appropriate one the article could benefit. I definitely learned something new! Braun4135 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Braun4135

Response to Primary Review Thank you so much for your feedback and we appreciate what you have said. We have decided to include a brief description of WM. A table was added in the Symptoms section, some of the wordiness was taken out, and we tried to make the sentence flowy where it needed to be flowy. Also, we clarified some of the 'its ' and 'theys,' other sentences that didn't make sense that you pointed out, and abbreviated BNS and WM. In addition, we fixed the second sentence of the intro where it seemed rather similar to the source and worded it in a different way. We also put in citations at the end of the paragraphs where it seemed appropriate, and we didnt think we need a concluding sentence since its the intro that already summarizes the whole page. Lastly, we just looked over the entire article to make sure grammar and phrasing were correct and concise. For all of your questions, we took a look and made note of what we found. Again, thank you! Achem10 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. The article is very well written and flows nicely without grammatical errors. The only change that I would make in terms of ease of reading is since you abbreviated Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS) in your introduction, carry this abbreviation throughout the entirety of the article. I don't think that you need to re-clarify the abbreviation at the beginning of new sections. Your abbreviation for Waldenström macroglobulinemia also does not need to be re-stated later in the article. Other than those changes, I think that the writing flows well and the categories are divided up correctly.

2. All of your sources look good and are cited correctly. I don't see any parts of the article that appear to plagiarized. As another student said, I'd try and add some more references into the treatment section.

3. You presented your topic very well in a manageable scope. This seems to be a topic that could have become very confusing if not dealt with well but you have done a good job of picking the important things to talk about.

4. You presented neutral prose on this topic without bias.

5. N/A

6. I don't see any photos in your article and adding some in could really help the reader visualize and understand what you are talking about. Good places to add photos in would be when discussing symptoms, as this can give the reader a very clear idea of what you are describing.

Source 1: Bing-Neel syndrome: an illustrative case and a comprehensive review of the published literature, Malkani RG, Tallman M, Gottardi-Littell N, et al. (February 2010): This appears to be a reliable secondary source. It appears that this source was only cited once in your article, but you did cite it correctly. You used the source correctly when discussing WM in your introduction but you could also probably integrate it more into the diagnosis and treatment sections as well. BMehall (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review Hello, thank you for reviewing our article, we greatly appreciate your feedback. In regards to your comments we looked over the article and made the following changes. We abbreviated Bing-Neel syndrome to BNS for the rest of the article to stay consistent. We made this change for the WM abbreviation as well. In response to your comment about adding more references into the treatment section, we looked into this change, but given the rarity of this diseases it would be difficult to add more reliable sources. I do like your suggestion of adding photos to help the reader visualize what we are discussing inc the article, however we could not find relevant photos to add at this time. Lastly we took note of integrating source 1 into more sections of the article. Thank you again for your review. Hondaporsh24 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)