![]() | Medicine: Neurology Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
Some supporting resaearch collections that may be useful
In recent years i have compiled a some online PubMed research paper collections which may be of some value to editors wishing to expand this article.
dolfrog (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Article Expansion
I am planning to expand this article as a project for my introductory neuroscience class. Ana Minchew (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Our names are Charlotte Wright and Marisa Dreher. We are currently majoring in Neuroscience at Middlebury College. We will be expanding this article over the next few weeks as part of our introductory neuroscience class. Charlotte Wright (talk) Marisa Dreher (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013
- Two editors cannot sign one talk page entry. The above addition was — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdreher528 (talk • contribs) 19:13, November 12, 2013 (UTC)
- User:CWright93 and User:Mdreher528, it would have been helpful to solicit feedback on your sandbox before adding your proposed text to the article. I am going to have to spend quite a bit of time cleaning up. What is your relationship to User:Ana Minchew? That is, do we have two different groups working here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup etc
I have reorganized the article to conform with WP:MEDMOS, cleaned up section headings per WP:MSH, removed some of the editorializing, and cleaned up the citations to conform with the style originally used (See WP:CITEVAR). I have not checked for copyvio, plagiarism, or too close paraphrasing. This is the version after my initial cleanup, for the commentary below.
Before going on to list the problems, I'll note that the sourcing is good; secondary reviews are mostly used (but a few primary sources should be replaced).
- The article is severely underwikified. Please see WP:MOSLINK, WP:RED and WP:OVERLINK. Please link technical terms on first occurrence.
- There is no WP:LEAD.
- Most of the sources used are behind paywall: I have not checked for copyvio, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing.
- Characteristics begins with a number of undefined, unlinked terms; then says that agraphia can be divided into central versus peripheral, and then goes on to divide it into aphasic and non-aphasic. What we have, then, is incomprehensible.
- There are spacing errors too numerous for me to clean up, grammatical errors, and sentences that make no sense. So, between that and the underlinking, what we have is incomprehensible text. I hope someone will clean it up so it doesn't have to be deleted. Sample:
These sorts of issues are throughout the article; it is not helpful for poorly written text to be plopped into an article on a leading website. Please clean up.Individuals have normal quantity of well-formed letters. However they lack of meaningful words.(Wernicke's aphasia is an example of fluent aphasia)
- The first paragraph in Causes doesn't make any connection to Causes.
- The section on AD in Causes is not about Causes-- it is about symptoms.
- Then, in addition to the differing levels of definitions already described, the Treatment section goes on to include even more undefined terms and conditions, and not all of the text in Treatment is about treatment. The article is poorly organized. The sections that should be included in a Wikipedia article are at WP:MEDMOS.
- Per WP:MEDMOS, try to avoid referring to individuals with agraphia as "patients". I've corrected a few-- there are more.
- Jargon abounds and text does not flow. The History section includes text that is beyond the scope of this article, and would probably be a good addition to another article, but this article is about "agraphia".
- For an example of the jargon issues throughout the article, "Six years after Broca's first case of aphemia, ... " We haven't been previously told about Broca's aphemia. In fact, the word "aphemia" hasn't occurred anywhere in the article! For reasons like this, the article lacks clarity and is pretty much incomprehensible to a layperson or in terms of encyclopedic tone.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy I have been trying to locate good research sources for the article for some time off an on, the major issue is translation from other languages such as Japanese. Much of the recent research originates from Japan, which is probably related to the structure of the writing system they use and its orthography, which is different from the Latin alphabet that we use. I am still updating my Agraphia research paper collection which may provide some useful sources, currently finding reviews can be difficult dolfrog (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing up this contradiction/confusion, Dolfrog ... but at this point in the article, aphasia hasn't even been defined, so the layperson still has no idea what that text means. Aphasia is linked earlier, but we have to go back to that link to try to decipher this sentence. And then we have to read through a lot of gobbledy-gook on the aphasia article. So, it would be nice if the two classes working on this article would strive to bring it to something comprehensible to the average reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have been watching the aphasia article over the years, It has become less muddled in recent times, the problem has been multiple terminology to describe the same issues, and moving the consensus towards the current research, and putting the old terminology models into the history section. If only i had some good copy editing skills. Both Agraphia and Alexia, much like developmental dyslexia and Dygraphia are symptoms of underlying conditons, which tend to be multiple layers of issues from how these issues have been identified in recent times. The symptoms were first identified, and as time has progressed and research technology has improved we are now better able to understand and explain the causes of the various layers of conditions / symptoms. Aphasia is primarily a set of speech related problems which can relate writing and text which are concerned with the visual notation of speech. (I have a developmental equivalent of aphasia which is the cause of my dyslexic symptom and my terrible spelling I use as spell checker) There are various sensory processing and motor issues which can cause various types of problems, and some can be co-morbid. (have a look at multisensory integration my project for the winter months). Not to sure if this helps. dolfrog (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing up this contradiction/confusion, Dolfrog ... but at this point in the article, aphasia hasn't even been defined, so the layperson still has no idea what that text means. Aphasia is linked earlier, but we have to go back to that link to try to decipher this sentence. And then we have to read through a lot of gobbledy-gook on the aphasia article. So, it would be nice if the two classes working on this article would strive to bring it to something comprehensible to the average reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy I have been trying to locate good research sources for the article for some time off an on, the major issue is translation from other languages such as Japanese. Much of the recent research originates from Japan, which is probably related to the structure of the writing system they use and its orthography, which is different from the Latin alphabet that we use. I am still updating my Agraphia research paper collection which may provide some useful sources, currently finding reviews can be difficult dolfrog (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Thank you for your comments as they will make our article stronger. CWright93 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Response
Hi Sandy, Thank you for your input regarding Wright and Dreher's submissions. It seems as though you are quite well versed in Wikipedia language and we are grateful for your input. As the students state, they are working on this for a class project and will certainly take all comments into account. We hope that you will make comments and allow them to make corrections. It will be a great experience for them. Also, it seems that multiple users are working on this page simultaneously: Ana Minchew. We are not related to Ana in anyway, but hope that we can all work together cooperatively to create the best page possible for this topic. We thank you for your patience and for your advice. Kim Cronise —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for (finally) engaging talk; I wish you had done it before beginning to work on the article. I imagine User:Ana Minchew and her class wish the same. Perhaps you all can put hour heads together, and get organized. That is why we have talk pages, that should be used. Will you (Kim) be helping to clean up the problems in this article? Can we count on them being cleaned up by term-end? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct Sandy. We will all be working together to generate a quality product. This was to be a draft submission for exactly this purpose: to see the responses, benefit from them, and to help them learn to manage their submissions. I hope that we can all provide a positive Wikipedia experience for students with the ultimate goal in mind: that they will feel welcome, now and in the future, to share knowledge and expertise with the public (of course, within the appropriate Wikiguidelines). Can I ask what your role is for Wiki and if we can use you as a resource? Your expertise would be helpful. User:Midd Intro Neuro
- I am a regular editor here, who is not happy at being an unpaid TA for professors who are trying to teach others to edit Wikipedia when they've never done it themselves. We should all have a positive experience, and we shouldn't be dropping incomprehensible text into articles. That is a disservice to our readers, and assuming that other regular editors will clean up is disrespectful. Have you and your students read WP:ASSIGN? It is ironic that another student, who did notify this talk page, has lost all of his/her work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct Sandy. We will all be working together to generate a quality product. This was to be a draft submission for exactly this purpose: to see the responses, benefit from them, and to help them learn to manage their submissions. I hope that we can all provide a positive Wikipedia experience for students with the ultimate goal in mind: that they will feel welcome, now and in the future, to share knowledge and expertise with the public (of course, within the appropriate Wikiguidelines). Can I ask what your role is for Wiki and if we can use you as a resource? Your expertise would be helpful. User:Midd Intro Neuro
Hi, this is Ana Minchew. All of my work is still in my Sandbox (it's still a very rough draft, and I didn't want to upload it until I'd had a chance to clean it up), so if you guys don't mind, we can share the responsibility of writing the article. It shouldn't be too confusing, since Wikipedia keeps a record of who wrote what. Ana Minchew (talk) User:Ana Minchew/sandbox 02:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good on you, User:Ana Minchew for using the talk page early on; I wish the other group had, and commend you for taking the first step in using Wikipedia appropriately. I hope, if much of your work has been eliminated, your professor will take into account that you did it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ana, Thank you for your willingness to collaborate on this article. Marisa and I really look forward to working with you to make this article stronger. CWright93 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues which require coordination between the various related Wikipedia articles concerning Aphasia, Agnosia, Alexia, and Agraphia concerning a wide range of inter-related issues. These issues need to be addressed by all editors, including student editors. These issues all part of continuing research to increase our understanding of human communication how we learn to communicate, and how things can go wrong. It would be a good idea of the students who are attempting to edit these related articles could actually communicate with each other, and other Wikipedia editors who have an interest in and contribute to these articles in order to provide some continuity. Wikipedia is about collaboration, and consensus, and working together. dolfrog (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Dolfrog: Thank you for your constructive comments on how to further improve this article, as well as linking Agraphia to related topics. We look forward to incorporating your suggestions into future edits. Marisa and I welcome any further contributions or comments that will make this article stronger. CWright93 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have a sandbox or more like sandboxes regarding agraphia and the related issues User:dolfrog/sandbox which may help dolfrog (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)