Talk:Neurolysis

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Neurolysis.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

→

Untitled[edit]

Please be aware that this Neurolysis Wikipedia page will be edited in a few weeks by students in a neurobiology course. We are currently working on a draft and are hoping to update the page soon.Chadchang2 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chadchang2, George baldas, NickSchneider.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary review[edit]

Hi! Overall, the Wikipedia page looks very well structured so far and it was easy to read. There are just a few suggestions that I have to make: First is just to link more articles just to make sure that people who do not have that great of an understanding on this topic are able to understand what is going on in the article. Next, I was slightly confused about the the headings because it seemed that there should be subheadings under the "Types of neurolysis". There are also some grammar mistakes such as sentence structure and only the first letter of the first word of the headings is supposed to be capitalized. Also, I think some pictures would really help clarify the topic if that is possible. Lastly, just content-wise, maybe having a little more in-depth information on the topic might be beneficial. I feel like most of the topics just have an overall sense of what the types of neurolysis is but it would be nice to just have some more information in general aside from the types.

Otherwise the source I checked is perfect as it is a secondary source! Mira pasawala (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. After taking into consideration what you suggested we added more links, fixed our headings (which we hope makes things clearer), proofread, and added more information. Unfortunately with the time constraint we weren’t able to add any additional information though this is something we could look at moving forward. Thank you again for your feedback. Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary review[edit]

I was personally a bit confused by the organization of the article: is "celiac plexus neurolysis" supposed to be a subheading of "types of neurolysis?" Are there any other subheadings that are supposed to be under that? If not, then it just looks like there's nothing under "types of neurolysis."

In the intro, maybe try to link to more articles (if possible). It would help make things make a bit more sense to those who aren't familiar with the topic.

That's all I really have to say, though!. Overall, well written and really interesting! AshleyPT (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. After taking your suggestions into consideration we cleared up the organization of the article and added more links. Thank you again for your feedback. Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review II[edit]

Howdy! First, the article was very clear, precise, and well-written. Note, however, that some of the treatments discussed are rather technical and require a foundation in anatomical knowledge. Because of this, it is important that you use links and explanations of important terms extensively. In the "Background" section, the words "ablation" and "fibrosis" could use such links or explanation. I checked the source, "Celiac Plexus Block and Neurolysis for Pancreatic Cancer," confirm that it is a secondary source, believe that you used its information effectively in describing neurolysis, and see that the information that you pulled from it is correct. Additionally, the citation seems to be correctly assembled. Your article does a fantastic job at describing the clinical usage of neurolysis but does not mention any other instances of it. Does, for example, neurolysis occur in any diseases or disorders? Yet, if neurolysis is a purely clinical term, the article has covered it quite well. In outlining treatments, bias could emerge in which treatment is dominant in a specific scenario, but I think you have avoided this by using sources when you state the niches of each treatment. You should find an image to complement the material discussed (a general diagram of sensory pathways may be helpful). Also, there is some issues with your section headers. I think that, in edit mode, you need to add an equal sign before and after the headers for each treatment so that the treatments appear under "Types of Neurolysis." Lastly, as Mira said, only the first letter of each header and proper nouns should be capitalized. Otherwise, strong work! Let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments.

Patrick V1 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of our article! We’ve added links to a few more terms to clarify and explain things and we’ve added images to make our article less text-heavy. The treatments section has been fixed and the “Types of Neurolysis” heading has also been adjusted. Thank you also for telling us about the first letter of each header! We must have missed the memo while drafting the article. Lastly, we only found articles describing neurolysis in the context of treating pancreatic cancer. Thank you for your feedback and for reading our article! Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review[edit]

The article was well written! However, there are still some areas that your group should focus on when writing the article. It would be nice for someone who is interested in the topic of Neurolysis to have a bit more background information. In addition, add visuals to your article to give it a vibrant look rather than a plan one. Other than those key components, the article looks solid! Keep up the good work! AndreH29 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. After taking what you had to say into account we did add three images that we hope will make things clearer. In terms of adding more background information there just is not enough time for us to do this at the moment but it is something we could look at doing in the future. Thank you again for your feedback. Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review[edit]

The information in this article is interesting and has the potential to flow nicely. I would suggest changing the "Type of Neurolysis" to be the bigger main heading and have the actual types of neurolysis as smaller subheadings. I would also number the types of neurolysis so that the article is easier to understand, and create a separate section for the clinical applications. Mig0423 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, we changed the formatting of the headings. We did not number the types of neurolysis as we thought the changing of the headings format made it easier to understand the flow of the article. We also decided not to make a different section for clinical applications due to lack of information to have its own heading. Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review[edit]

Hi! This was overall a great article. The text itself was easy to read and understand. I think adding more hyperlinks and some photos would be beneficial. And as the others have mentioned, the headings should be reformatted to make the "types of neurolysis" a headline and the types as subheadings. The I thought the lead was good and well summarized the info present in the body of the article. Nice job! Isabella3501 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, we created more hyperlinks to make it easier to understand, we added a few images to better display what we are talking about, and we changed the formatting of the headings. Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review[edit]

Hello! I thought that the article overall was organized and written well. However I would like to offer some suggestions on further improving it. Primarily, I think it would be beneficial to add images throughout the article. Not too many, but maybe around 2 to 4 that help the reader further understand the different paragraphs. I also saw a few grammatical errors that I think other users have identified, so I would also recommend fixing those! Additionally, I think at times the article lacked flow or I had to reread some sentences to understand where the general flow is going.The paragraphs (subsections) also were short and relayed a lot of basic level information, as others have stated, I think to fix this you could perhaps maybe include more subsections to lengthen the article or add more information that digs deeper on the biological level to cover more areas of Neurolysis. And lastly, I also think that adding links to certain concepts or words can guide readers who are not as familiar with a term to another source that can provide them more background information and can help them understand the information more clearly. I liked the overall length of "Lumbar Sympathetic Neurolysis", it was also well written. Medford22 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Medford22 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! We went through and added images and links to the article. We’ll also go through the article a few more times to proofread and fix any grammatical errors, but we will not be adding any additional information at this time, despite this being a good future direction for this article. Thank you for your suggestions! Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review[edit]

The article was very well written! However, if a few adjustments are made, it could be close to perfect.
What I really liked was how it was pretty easy to follow with the wording used which can be quite difficult in a scientific article. However, I think topics could be expanded on even more than it is right now. Also, the types of Neurolysis is a good heading, however, the proceeding headings that would fit underneath that topic should be a little smaller in size. Finally, if images were added to your article both provide color and a nice visual aide of what is being described, it can be very helpful! Other than those small changes, the article looks great! Let me know if you have any questions or need any help! KashTalwar415 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we added a few images to better articulate what our article is about. We also fixed the headings format. We did not expand on any of the types of neurolysis as finding the sources we did took long enough. Further elaboration could be done in the future, but it would take a lot more in depth reading of many different types of articles about neurolysis. Chadchang2 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]