Talk:Toxic encephalopathy

Stub

This page is currently a stub. Need much expanding to do this topic justice.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that this page needs expansion, a stub is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Also, do you have any information for the empty sections? --Edward130603 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toxic encephalopathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments

• Does not deal with a wide enough breadth.
• No section on history.
• Specific causes also include Septic encephalopathy Hepatic encephalopathy Uremic encephalopathy Hyponatremia Hypernatremia Other electrolyte abnormalities Hypoglycemia Wernicke's encephalopathy Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy Post-transplantation encephalopathy
  • Those are causes of toxic encephalopathy?--Edward130603 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• The medical name is acute toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (TME)
  • There's also a chronic toxic encephalopathy. Also, from ICD-9:

Toxic encephalopathy

349.82 is a specific code that can be used to specify a diagnosis

349.82 contains 8 index entries

View the ICD-9-CM Volume 1 349.* hierarchy

349.82 also known as:

Toxic metabolic encephalopathy

--Edward130603 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Uptodate has a good overview. Email me and I can get you a temp copy.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Doc, but what is a temp copy? Also, why do you think the timeline showing the symptoms of a patient with CTE was inappropriate.--Edward130603 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great article. I will read over it in detail soon!--Edward130603 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Review

After a quick reading of the article, as it is really short I am sorry to say that I believe it is very far away yet from being a good article. A good medical article is described as "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia" and Fetal alcohol syndrome is given as a GA example (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment)in the medicine field. Just a quick look is enough to see the differences between the latter and this article. I would order my comments following the GA criteria. My greatest concerns are with its broad coverage of the topic.

Well written: Language is vague in most sections. As an example: "Research is being done by organizations such as NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke) on what substances can cause encephalopathy, why they do this, and eventually how to protect, treat, and cure the brain from this condition". Such sentences could be the introduction of a longer paragraph, but they can not be all info in a section in a GA.

Factually accurate: The article is referenced with mid-quality references: most of them come from well known organizations and they are reliable to some extent; however references from review articles in peer-reviewed journals are preferred for medical articles. (See WP:MEDMOS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)). This is the case of pages such as those from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Other webs are probably much less reliable as the Fela law site: it is a private commercial site which aims to attract railroad workers to sue their employers. The latter kind should be changed by better references

Neutral: The problems with sources pointed above make it really hard to see if the article is neutral. I doubt for example that naming so prominently railroad workers passes WP:WEIGHT. Once better references are found the article would have to be factually checked and balanced.

Stable: Seems stable enough

Ilustrated: Images are always difficult to find but I believe that with some effort some more other images could be brought up.

Broad in its coverage-organization of the info: My main problem with the article is regarding this criterium. The article lacks important info on the disease which does not permit to have an overall image of it (The GA criterium states: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). Compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)is a necessity to cover all the important sections in a disorder article. Not present sections are pathophisiology, prevention-screening,and epidemiology. Additionally some of the present sections are so short (Only a sentences) that they hardly can be considered to cover all important info on the disease. All sections should be improved with a lot of more content and those non yet existing should be created.

Attributtion and plagiarism: an article can not (mostly) be made from a copy and paste from the NINDS website. Additionally the fact that their info is in the public domain does not mean that it can be copied verbatim since it is still considered plagiarism. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches.

Without a much broader coverage of the topic and better sources in the lines proposed I believe the article does not comply with the GA criteria. --Garrondo (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for translation

Could somebody PLEASE translate the article on toxic encephalopathy into german and post it on wikipedia.de. Together with many colleagues I'm suffering from toxic encephalopathy after chemical exposition and understandable information in german is rather scarce. Many thanks !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.217.203 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A request on wikipedia.de would be much more likely to get a response -- there is pretty much zero chance that anybody who watches this article will be capable of translating it into German. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a request on German Wikipedia would help you. Also, this is the page for encephalopathy in general on German Wiki: Enzephalopathie It doesn't appear to be too well written, but it is a start.--Edward130603 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)