Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: HAL333 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a huge topic so it may take me longer than usual to review, I'll fill out the table as I go and make comments below so it is easier for you to respond. At first glance, there is a few SFN errors that should be fixed. Additionally per WP:MEDDATE we should be using articles published within the last 5 years wherever possible. Because Parkinsons is such a hot topic I would imagine there is enough research to be able to do this. If you plan on taking this to FAC then I'd try to use the 5 year rule, but for the sake of GAN I try to stick to 10 years. Meaning every source published before 2015 (excluding NICE reviews, Cocheran reviews, and history section) should be replaced with more recent sources. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate you tackling what will likely be a lengthy review. The ultimate goal is to bring this up to Featured status, so if you're more picky than is necessarily needed for the GAN process, that's quite fine for me. And I am perfectly happy if you take your time: I didn't expect this review to be initiated so quickly (I guess I've just been unlucky in the past) and I have an overseas mountaineering trip from December 31 through January 14. I'll try to make the occasional prose adjustment, but I'll only have my phone and an unreliable connection, so reference consultation will likely be limited. I'll be able to address all your comments within a few days of my return. ~ HAL333 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. Knowing that you plan to take this to the FA level I'll leave some additional comments that will hopefully get you moving in the right direction. These will be completely optional but I will include them to hopefully give you a headstart. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Some minor issues are listed below. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Images are all captioned appropriately. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until HAL333 can address the issues I have found thusfar. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the image under the motor section of symptoms "diminutive handwriting" isn't defined which is an issue cause the wikilink doesn't really help. A quick explanation would be nice. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this just an WP:EASTEREGG issue? Let me know if my fix is sufficient. ~ HAL333 00:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your fix looks good. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the autonomic section, I don't feel like your image caption of Dysphagia—an autonomic failure—and subsequent complications like aspiration pneumonia (pictured) reduce quality of life. is super helpful here. Could it be changed to something along the lines of Dysphagia can lead to aspiration pneumonia (pictured) as the QOL isn't brought up elsewhere in this section so it feels out of place. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The caption under the two images in the causes section may read better as The protein alpha-synuclein aggregates into Lewy bodies and neurites. Structural model of alpha-synuclein (left), photomicrograph of Lewy bodies (right). to better explain the two images. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Under imaging the term "F-DOPA" is used but never explained. Is there a wikilink you could add or could you give a brief explanation on this? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Under levodopa the acronym LCE is used. Could you spell this out in full? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The wording of the caption under the tricycle is a little odd. Could you reword it? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Under cell based therapies the caption says "one such iSPC differentiated" but I assume you mean iPSCs. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• All addressed. Let me know if any need further tweaking. ~ HAL333 00:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All looks good on the image part. Let me know once you get around to the citations and I'll continue my review after that. No preassure time wise as I suspect this will be a lengthy review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You have quite a few borderline sources included here. I'll link all of the ones I found on a quick look. If you could replace as many of these as possible that would be great. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all of these will need to be replaced. Try putting the issn into this website. For example, the journal "International journal of molecular sciences" (used in this pub) is indexed in a lot of databases while some of the other journals here aren't indexed in may databases. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• HAL333 How are you doing with the article thusfar? Is there anywhere you'd like help with? (I ofc cannot contribute significantly, but I could help try to find some newer sources for you and I don't think that would be considered being too involved with the article). IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah, it's all doable IntentionallyDense. Sorry for the delay: I should have nearly all of this addressed by Saturday. ~ HAL333 23:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good thanks for the reply! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you plan to take this to the FA level I thought I'd leave some recommendations that I've gotten over at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. All of these are optional and will not effect the outcome of my decision here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There is some major overlinking with this article. I'll see what I can do myself but in general things only really need to be linked once. See MOS:LINKONCE. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• With the amount of technical terms (especially in the causes/pathophysiology section) there may be situations where it is appropriate to add a red link in. See Wikipedia:Red link. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:MEDDATE will be taken much more seriously at the FA level. As will borderline sources. I suggest trying to replace as many of these as possible unless you are able to give a strong argument as to why they should be included over a newer article from a more reliable publisher. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Scaling of images should be done with the |upright feature not by pixel size. See MOS:UPRIGHT. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text should be added to all images. See WP:MOSALT IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources should be ordered alphabetically. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Anywhere where you can provide a page number you should. I see quite a bit of sfns without page numbers. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alt text is not required at FAC, though of course often used. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah thanks for the clarification, I did not know this! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I last edited this article in 2023, the citations were clean. Content was being added and copied from other articles without bringing over full citations or entering correct citations, such that I finally gave up and unwatched, and now the article is flagged as problematic, with scores of citation errors. I recognize that the citation consistency standards for GA are not as high as FA, but there are citations in this article for which no source is supplied, and sources listed in this article for which no citation is used. It doesn't strike me that should be happening at the GA level. HAL333 please install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to realize how bad the problem is. Sources which were copied from other articles will need to be brought over here, and sources which are not used need to be removed. Meanwhile, I do not suggest considering this article as remotely close to FA standards yet, and suggest an extended peer review will be needed first. Also, a WP:CWW check might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Sandy, I haven’t even gotten to the sources, let alone the prose yet as I started with addressing the images and requesting more recent sources as well as checking if all the sources are reliable. I would agree that a Peer review would be helpful for such a massive article like this. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to understand the GA standards, so some of my commentary could be inapplicable here and the candidate shouldn't be penalized per me ... but the problem with citations has been nagging at me for a long time, and I saw it mentioned at WT:MED, and then I added some other things as long as I was here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absent better (broader) sourcing, this content looks WP:UNDUE and promotional:

• Speech therapies such as the Lee Silverman voice treatment may reduce the effect of speech disorders associated with PD.[206][207] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A however check may be in order (there are eight instances):

• see overuse of however and User:John/however. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These might be WP:MEDDATE problems (2016 source?):

• Dairy consumption correlates with a higher risk, possibly due to contaminants like heptachlor epoxide.[120] Although the connection is unclear, melanoma diagnosis is associated with an approximately 45 percent risk increase.[120] There is also an association between methamphetamine use and PD risk.[120]

Have these statements borne out over time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This statement might be subtly incorrect:

• Isolated RBD is a particularly significant sign as 90% of those affected will develop some form of neurodegenerative parkinsonism.[139]

My understanding is that RBD is better than 90% predictive for a synucleinopathy -- not necessarily the same as "some form of neurodegenerative parkinsonism" -- that is, please check other sources. Also, what is meant by the word isolated here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of surprising statement requires a better-than-2017 source:

• Differential diagnosis of Parkinson's is among the most difficult in neurology.[149]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check throughout for statements like this which are giving medical advice-- rephrase to avoid giving medical advice:

• As it can compete for uptake with amino acids derived from protein, levodopa should be taken 30 minutes before meals to minimize such competition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit need here:

• Around 30% of Parkinson's patients develop dementia, and is 12 times more likely to occur in elderly patients of those with severe PD.[224]

WP:MEDDATE issue here (2017):

• Dementia is less likely to arise in patients with tremor-dominant PD.[225] Is this still believed to be true? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is verified by the source, but needs to be checked versus other sources:

• As of 2024, Parkinson's is the second most common neurodegenerative disease and the fastest-growing in total number of cases.[231][232]

Most sources say that Lewy body dementia is the second most common-- that would be Parkinson's disease dementia together with dementia with Lewy bodies. Perhaps some rephrasing will adjust for the discrepancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense and HAL333: I thought I would go in and try to clean up the citation issues myself, but I've now looked at the very large number of sources that are red-flagged by User:Headbomb/unreliable (Headbomb might have a word here), and between that and the HarvRef errors, I believe this article meets the quick fail criteria for GAN. A peer review to get the sourcing cleaned up here is probably the fastest way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which sources you see flaged in red. There's a lot of yellow though, mostly stemming from shit MDPI journals, questionable Frontiers ones, and retraction-prone/paper-mill friendly Hindawi. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did address the flagged citations in my feedback, requesting that they be changed. However since I've already started the review, I'd much rather give a full review in the hopes that it can get some of the issues out of the way before a peer review. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay nvm, I'm going to give some general feedback and close this. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as this article has quite a few issues, I think it would be a waste of my time to give it a full review in it's current state. Before you renominate I'd suggest making the following changes:
  • Fix HARV errors. There is unused citations and SFNs without a full citation
  • Update the sources. Parkinsons disease is a hot topic in medicine. I find it hard to believe that there is not more recent research available. For a GAN, excluding NICE and cocheran guidelines, I expect sources to be from within the past 10 years. At a FA level this would most likely be tightened to the past 5 years.
  • Check the reliability of the sources. At this point in time, there should be no reason why you would need to use primary sources or sources flagged as not super reliable when writing about a topic such as Parkinsons disease.
  • Copy editing. Any article of this size is bound to have some wording issues. I think this article would benefit from some copy editing and some work to make it a little less technical. This is an article that will absolutely be read by non medical professionals and I think we need to keep that in mind while wording things. Some level of technical wording is to be expected with medical articles but I'm not convinced that in it's current state the article has prose that is at GA level.
• I am going to leave this page unarchived for discussion purposes. I am more than happy to help out with some of the process and would also gladly give this article another review once these issues have been improved upon. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I appreciate it. ~ HAL333 06:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]