Jump to content

Talk:Parkinson's disease

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HAL333 (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 15 December 2024 (RfC: Should the four lead images be replaced?: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleParkinson's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 17, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 5, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
October 17, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


Missing source

@HAL333, in this edit you added an sfn to Bhattacharyya (2017), but didn't add the long-form source. Could you add it to the bibliography please? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wham2001, oops. Thanks for catching that. I've just fixed it. Cheers. ~ HAL333 22:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Biology I from cells to organisms

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TTK043 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TTK043 (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: Should the four lead images be replaced?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a resounding consensus against having Lewy body as the lead image, so I'll close this per WP:SNOW. ~ HAL333 21:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the four images currently used in the infobox be replaced with this one of a Lewy body below? ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Lewy body (stained brown), an abnormal protein aggregate found in neurons, a hallmark of Parkinson's disease

Past Discussions

2023, 2022, 2013, 3-25-2011, 3-8-2011, 2008, 2006 ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Support new image The current four images are low-quality, inconsistent, and unnecessarily clutter the infobox. More importantly, they fail to represent Parkinson's disease accurately, given its highly variable symptoms, which range from low blood pressure to cognitive decline. It's not even very clear what symptoms the current lead images are trying to illustrate, like the circled foot. These images violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section as they are not genuinely representative. In contrast, a Lewy body—widely recognized as the hallmark biological feature of Parkinson's disease—provides a more accurate and universal depiction. Trying to accurately depict patients afflicted with a disease in the lead image is almost impossible and is not the standard on Wikipedia: see Cancer, Tuberculosis, Syphilis, or other neurodegenerative diseases like Huntington's disease, the FA Dementia with Lewy bodies, Multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, ALS, or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. ~ HAL333 02:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone needs a direct comparison, these are the lead images on related articles:
  • No (Summoned by bot) I don't find microscopic images of damaged tissue very informative to understanding the effect of a disease. The current image has been in the article for about one year, and this simpler image of the "Gowers' illustration" was in the article as early as 6-1-2019. In 2011, it was even a featured article with the "Gowers' illustration".[1] Based on the discussions I included above, the Gowler's illustration seems historically significant--so I prefer seeing it included high up in the article as it is now. There seems to be a long-running consensus to keep an image such as the current one. About a year ago this image was floated and apparently rejected, which might be an acceptable alternative to the current one. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't think the proposed picture of a Lewy body helps the reader to understand anything at all about Parkinson's. --Alarics (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: per above. --ZZZ'S 16:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The proposed Lewy body image assumes the general user would understand or recognize the cellular effect, which is unlikely; see WP:WFTWA and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6,7. The disease symptoms image is a good choice for general users to visually grasp the article. Zefr (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prevention section

The subhead is misnamed - there is no 'prevention', only potential reduction of risk. All the sources used in this section are research-in-progress. The section should be retitled 'Research on risk reduction' and moved to below the 'Prognosis' section. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Prevention" subsection has been around for quite some time, and is the standard on related sections like Alzheimer's disease, and is suggested per WP:MEDMOS. I think that this objection might be rooted in a misunderstanding of the meaning of "prevention" in a medical context. It quite literally means "potential reduction of risk" (per the NIH: "Prevention = In medicine, action taken to decrease the chance of getting a disease or condition"). Also, "Research on risk reduction" is a somewhat ungainly title, and aren't essentially all of these subsections resulting from research? Should the all be titled "Research on X"? ~ HAL333 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]