Jump to content

Talk:Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I will have to quickfail this article, as there are too many issues keeping it from becoming a GA. Feel free to resubmit after the article has become more developed, and the issues listed below are addressed. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • the article needs a thorough copyedit, there are many typos and other grammar errors that need to be fixed. Some examples:
  • "A spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid occurs without an obvious cause..." Done
  • "...and repaired by epidural blood patch." Done
  • "Due to lack of CSF pressure and volume the brain descends through the foramen magnum (occipital bone) it is believed to stretch or impact various nerve complexes," Done
  • "The fluid pressure is obtained by preforming a lumbar puncture..." Done
  • "MRI is not the study of choice..." Done
  • "Schaltenbrand described a series of patient who had..." Done
  • there shouldn't be any need to use citations in the lede, as this is a summary of the article's content, and this info will be cited further down
I think this paragraph further down gives all the answers (italics mine): Sasata (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

It seems from what you quoted that there is no hard-and-fast rule about citations in the lede, but rather "the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Since there isn't much controversial information in the lede of this article it seems that the citations can easily be moved into the article itself. I'll start to work on that. Basket of Puppies 01:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of citations to supply additional information, such as the lengthy reference 9, is discouraged. Try to incorporate the info into the article text instead. Also, it's not necessary to supply the source sentence you're citing (see refs 1,2,3,4,6)
  • random spurts of jargon that are not explained or given context, eg.
  • "There are also cases of Reversible Frototemporal Dementia and Coma as a result of SCSFL."
  • "MRI studies may show pachymeningeal enhancement and a Chiari malformation, but this may not be seen in every case."
  • acronym MRI used in the diagnosis section, but not defined
  • "A 2003-2004 Emergency Room-based study..." use endashes, not hyphens for number ranges
  • the lack of references is disconcerting, and is the clearest indication that the article needs more development. Some issues not mentioned:
  • what is the frequency of recurrence following attempted surgical closure such as transnasal endoscopic techniques?
  • Where's the pathophysiology section? See wp:MEDMOS for details of the format to follow for medical articles
  • Needs much more detail on surgical treatment & a bit on postoperative management

There's a wealth of literature on the subject in the form on recent reviews (secondary sources). Additionally, primary sources & cases studies are useful to check as the introduction sections in these articles often contain useful background information. These should be consulted to help expand the article and bring it up to date on the subject. Here's a sampling of some recent articles (but a proper literature search will reveal many more):

Title: Spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leak as a cause of coma after craniotomy for clipping of an unruptured intracranial aneurysm Case report Author(s): Schievink, WI; Palestrant, D; Maya, MM, et al. Source: JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY Volume: 110 Issue: 3 Pages: 521-524 Published: 2009  Done

Title: Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leaks Author(s): Woodworth, BA; Palmer, JN Source: CURRENT OPINION IN OTOLARYNGOLOGY & HEAD AND NECK SURGERY Volume: 17 Issue: 1 Pages: 59-65 Published: 2009  Done

Title: Spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leaks Author(s): Schievink, WI Source: CEPHALALGIA Volume: 28 Issue: 12 Published: 2008  Done

Title: What are the action mechanisms of lumbar epidural blood patch in trendelenburg position in the treatment of spontaneous cervical CSF leakage? Author(s): Ferrante, E; Arpino, I; Citterio, A, et al. Source: NEUROLOGY Volume: 70 Issue: 11 Pages: A353-A353 Published: 2008  Not done I cannot find this paper anywhere, even at Neurology. Basket of Puppies 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Spontaneous C1-2CSF leak treated with high cervical epidural blood patch Author(s): Peng, PWH; Farb, R Source: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES Volume: 35 Issue: 1 Pages: 102-105 Published: 2008  Done

Title: Familial occurrence of spontaneous spinal CSF leaks: Underlying connective tissue disorder (CME) Author(s): Mokri, B Source: HEADACHE Volume: 48 Issue: 1 Pages: 146-149 Published: 2008  Done

Regarding this quick fail I just have to say that I am genuinely discouraged. The issues raised (in particular the copyediting) could have been easily remedied, thus avoiding a qucikfail. The sources which you cite are already extensively cited in the article. Perhaps a full GA review can take place? Thanks. Basket of Puppies 20:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same article? None of the sources I suggested are cited in the article. The article wasn't failed because of the typos, but because it needs to cover the topic much better (i.e., criteria 3a in WP:WIAGA), and this sort of research and writing takes time do to properly. I'll gladly re-review after the article has been developed and the issues addressed. Sasata (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are reading the same article. :) Some of them publications are in multiple journals. At the same time you have indeed brought a few that I hadn't seen before, but some aren't at all related to spontaneous CSF leaks. Anyhow, I will gladly go forth and begin incorporating these papers into the article. I am not sure how much more content they will add, however. Cheers, Basket of Puppies 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same list of refs? :) All of them are relevant to spontaneous CSF leaks... and this was just a quick search of papers from 2008-09, so it looks like this is a reasonably big topic. Good skill on the quest to GA! Sasata (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spontaneous_cerebrospinal_fluid_leak/GA1&oldid=1086326187"