ALS is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
The contents of the Extraocular muscles and ALS page were merged into ALS on 15 April 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
I think it was incredibly misguided to move this article from "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" to "ALS". The basis of the argument seems to be that it is almost always referred to by the abbreviation and not the expanded form. This is true, but does not mean that the expanded form should be hidden. The reader needs to know what ALS stands for. On a first mention, in any article, "ALS" alone should not be used. "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)" is the form most helpful to the reader, with ALS then used thereafter. And the article itself should clearly be at the expanded form. It's analogous to influenza, which everybody calls the flu, or multiple sclerosis, very commonly referred to as MS, with both those articles rightly being at the longer form. 94.70.247.219 (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable minds may differ. Don't forget though, that the full name is visible from the moment the reader opens the page. If other articles decide to write [[Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis]], they will still be directed here, and there is no reason that any other page must use "ALS"; that decision will depend on the needs of that page. — HTGS (talk)06:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: I had considered the article title before seeing this. Many, if not most readers will look for either "Lou Gehrig's disease" or "ALS" because they either won't know the actual name or, if the do, will have problems spelling it. For this reason I think ALS the better choice. Otr500 (talk)
The article is a good read. It seems to me that the "Name" subsection in the "History" section, as the etymology of historical development of its name and meaning, would not be at the bottom of the article.
The second, third and fourth paragraphs of the "Differential diagnosis" subsection mainly deal with "ALS-like symptoms" or "ALS mimic syndromes" and it seems that one of them would be a better choice under its own subheading.
People reading this article, dealing with or knowing someone with an initial diagnosis of ALS, will certainly be interested in reading the various testing for the many other known diseases that mimic symptoms of ALS.
For a certainty it would seem that "Diagnosis" and its "Differential diagnosis" subsection would be better presented before the "Progression" section and subsections that includes Death.
The third paragraph of the lead should really be the last. "There is no known cure for ALS". "Survival from onset to death is two to four years". As writing goes this seems to be the end of the story. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
