Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Micropsia/1

Micropsia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted by Jmh649 aka Doc James. Geometry guy 23:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• did this person from whom we have the MRI have this condition?

• The MRI image of a patient who suffers from micropsia's MRIs could not be found. The MRI image used in the article serves as a visual representation of what a lesion affecting the areas of the brain (namely the temporal and parietal lobes) that can lead to micropsia would look like. It is certainly not unreasonable, given the area of the lesion, that the tumor shown in Papillary_glioneuronal_tumor.jpg would lead to micropsia and, for this reason, it was used in the article even though an MRI of a patient who suffers from micropsia would be ideal. CharlesWCII^talk 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have reservations regarding this. Being on the page implies that the person had this condition and gives this potential cause unfounded prominance. Most people from what I have read have micropsia either due to seizures, migraines, or psychological / psychiatric reasons not a mass lesion. A lesion of this size is not likely to cause a subtle neurological finding but is much more likely to cause significant problems with vision.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• does not follow WP:LEAD

• The lead has been reorganized and unnecessary information has been moved to the appropriate sections. CharlesWCII^talk 05:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• the lead should summarize the article in 3 or 4 paragraphs. One the article has been expanded this should be easier to do.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• this link does not even discuss this topic [1]

• The MedlinePlus classification link has been removed. CharlesWCII^talk 05:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• problems with use of caps

• Some capitalization errors have been corrected. The identification of any remaining errors would be appreciated. CharlesWCII^talk 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• a number of points need referencing

• The identification of these unreferenced points would be appreciated. CharlesWCII^talk 05:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• no section on how common this condition is

• Thank you for the addition of the "epidemiology" section. CharlesWCII^talk 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• no section on classification ( it is a type of visual distortion for example and is the most common of the group ). http://books.google.com/books?id=jnuSej2Bf4cC&pg=PA282&dq=Micropsia&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2000&as_maxm_is=11&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0&ei=rPkRS4GlMJ7uMtfNwcAL#v=onepage&q=Micropsia&f=false

• Thank you for the addition of the "classification" section. CharlesWCII^talk 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to improve this article. I am proud of what it has become so far and of the improvements that it is still making. I want this article to be of Good article status and I hope that recent improvements and future improvements can make it an example of an article that is clearly deserving of this status. CharlesWCII^talk 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• The most common causes need to be emphasized ( ie seizures, migraines, and psychiatric / psychological ). The causes section needs to be expanded. For example how common is micropsia in seizure ( what kind of seizures does it occur in: temperal lobe epilepsy ). How common is it in migraines. Does it just occur as part of the aura or does it persistent throughout. What types of psychiatric conditions is it most commonly associated with. What drugs give this symptoms. etc. Maybe break the causes section into 4 subgroups related to a discussion of the three most common causes and a group for other causes.

• Currently, the Causes section is divided into subsections for Migraines, Seizures, Drug use, Psychological factors, Epstein-Barr virus infection, Retinal edema, Macular degeneration, Central Serous Chorioretinopathy, and Brain lesions, with Migranes, Seizures, and Drug use being the most elaborated-on sections. Do you think it would be more appropriate to leave Psychological factors, Epstein-Barr virus infection, Retinal edema, Macular degeneration, and Central Serous Chorioretinopathy as their own subsections for consistency or to group them into one subsection for consolidation? CharlesWCII^talk 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• both the classification and epidemiology sections need to be expanded ( google books will help ). We now how common it is in adolescents but how about in adults.

• The classification section has been expanded and we are in the process of expanding the epidemiology section.Farnhach (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• With 9 % of people having this condition at some point in there life the most common MRI finding is normal.
• The diagnosis section needs to emphasis that MRI / CT rules out mass lesion but will not diagnosis the most common causes. No mention is made of EEG use to diagnose temperal lobe epilepsy. The final paragraph is not really written in an encyclopedic style.

• EEG use to diagnose temporal lobe epilepsy has been added to the diagnosis section. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• The last paragraph, now the center paragraph, has been changed to fit a more encyclopedic style. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• This paragraph and ref makes no mention of micropsia "A study called AREDS (age-related eye disease study) determined that taking dietary supplements containing high-dose antioxidants and zinc produced significant benefits with regard to disease progression. This study was the first ever to prove that dietary supplements can alter the natural progression and complications of a disease state. Laser treatments also look promising but are still in clinical stages.[14]" Therefore the claim that it is a treatment of this condition is WP:OR

• Same argument regarding micropsia as a result of macular degeneration listed below (VEGF paragraph). That treating macular degeneration also treats micropsia. Giantsjs2000 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hemimircopsia is a type of micropsia not a related visual condition "Related visual perception conditions include hemimicropsia"

• This has been fixed to say that hemimicropsia is a specific type of micropsia. Farnhach (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alice in Wonderland Syndrome is not really a more complex condition. It is just the name applied to this group of conditions ( which includes micropsia among others ).

• This has been changed. Alice in Wonderland Syndrome is no longer referred to as being a more complex condition but rather a condition that can include micropsia and macropsia. Farnhach (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• This paragraph to is not referenced by something pertaining to micropsia "Current research is being done on macular degeneration which could help prevent cases of micropsia. A variety of drugs that block vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) are being evaluated as a treatment option. These treatments for the first time have produced actual improvements in vision, rather than simply delaying or arresting the continued loss of vision characteristic of macular degeneration. A number of surgical treatments are also being investigated for macular degeneration lesions that may not qualify for laser treatment, including macular translocation to a healthier area of the eye, displacement of submacular blood using gas, and removing membranes by surgery.[14]"

• Since macular generation is known to produce micropsia, the future VEGF treatment for macular degeneration, along with future surgical techniques, can be seen as treatments for micropsia caused by macular degeneration. Is that enough grounds to list this as a possible future treatment? Giantsjs2000 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• No you cannot draw that conclusion. You need to show that the treatment improves this condition for it to be a seen as effective. Otherwise it is original research. Does treating macular degeneration cure micropsia?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Little progress has been made in the last ten days. Due to concerns of formatting ( multiple one sentence paragraphs ) issues with images ( it is dishonest to show an image of a lesion which may but didn't cause the condition ), among others. I will fail this review at this time. Please apply for reassessment when issues addressed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)