Wikipedia:Peer review/Hereditary diffuse leukoencephalopathy with spheroids/archive3

Hereditary diffuse leukoencephalopathy with spheroids

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to better reflect this neurodegenerative disorder that is commonly overlooked due to its rarity.

Thanks, Hsrinimukesh3 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a spheriod/axonal spheroids? The WP:LEAD could/should define it. A picture would be nice, but I understand if you can't locate one of course.
Add a link to "polycystic lipomembranous osteodysplasia with sclerosing leukoencephalopathy" please. WP:RED is good, by the way.
The text in "History & Origination" that starts of with "Related disorders in the same disease... " should begin a section called Related diseases, in my opinion.
"History & Origination" should just be "History" per WP:MEDMOS, as is done at DVT or malaria
Also regarding MEDMOS, it doesn't seem like there is much epidemiology in the epi section, see the epidemiology section of DVT for an idea of what I was expecting. Numbers like 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000? You say it is rare to start of the peer review. How rare? =) Has it been documented in those that are not of European descent? Also, some of the material could go in a classification section, some in a pathophysiology section, etc.
Also per MEDMOS, "Genetics" seems better off as just a "Causes" section
I'm not sure why the text "Given the difficulty of identifying cases definitively as HDLS, researchers have looked into other disorders that can produce white matter degeneration" is worded well. Perhaps it could be done more efficiently as "White matter degeneration is associated with—and makes differential diagnoses out of—x, y, and z." Or something similar? Or are you trying to communicate another idea that I completely missed?
There is a missing period at the end of "inability to speak (mutism)[3]". The period would go between the ) and the [ per WP:REFSPACE examples.
Section headings should not be capitalizes unless they are proper nouns (see WP:HEADINGS)
The phrase "Current research" could become outdated in a couple years, no? Therefore, try something like, As of 2010, or whatever year your source is.
The Research section reminds me a little bit of a materials and methods section. Maybe the relevant content could be incorporated into a Diagnosis section? A diagnosis section is a main one, as you can see at MEDMOS, DVT, malaria, etc.
I hope these comments are useful, and I hope you can continue to improve the article when you have time, even if it is after Wednesday the 28th. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a majority of those changes. I'll have to follow up with a clinician on getting more information on pathophysiology and epidemiology. I had trouble grabbing that from papers. Maybe he can direct me toward a reliable resource so that I can more fully fill it out. Thanks, Hsrinimukesh3 (talk)

Thanks. From a glance, I like what I see. The diagnosis section contains a lot of "how-to"-ish materials and methods stuff, it seems. How research is done is not of interest to readers, unless you're at an article for that research methodology. Can we please remove from the diagnosis section unnecessary details? Also, if you have access to Web of Science it should be easy to see what's out there for a rare disease like this, I would think. Can we also get more links (even if they are WP:RED) to those diseases in the table inside the Clinical symptoms & misdiagnoses section? Biosthmors (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]