Talk:Acquired non-inflammatory myopathy

Marquette University Neurobiology Review Information
There was not a significant amount of information to be found covering this topic. Much of the research found on our topic was primarily focusing on inflammatory myopathy, which is much more well known than acquired noninflammatory myopathy. Please let me know if I can clear anything up or provide more information for you. NWcoffee (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review
First off, nice job at making the best of your topic with so little research available! Overall, your article was informative and provided relevant and engaging information; the topics that you chose to elaborate on were well executed. With that, I have some feedback for you in regards to grammar, stylistic remarks, and overall comments. The way that I will be presenting this feedback is section-by-section, just as presented in your article, in order to help you navigate where I saw issues/necessary changes.
 * Introduction: The very first three paragraphs are loaded with very important information, clearly demonstrating your overall grasp of Acquired non-inflammatory myopathy (ANIM). However, from these 3 paragraphs, the last 2 paragraphs are confusing and seem to be peripheral to what you are trying to explain. Specifically, your information goes in a few circles before landing at the main topic. I do not see the necessity in having a lot of information in what ANIM is not. But rather, be concise in what it is and what affects it. Going further, the second paragraph has very abrupt sentences that made me feel ‘hanging’ for more. For example, instead of just leaving this sentence the way it is (“An acquired noninflammatory myopathy is not the result of a dysfunction of the immune system”), go further to complete the thought: “An acquired noninflammatory myopathy is not the result of a dysfunction of the immune system, but rather it presents as the reaction/result…” Additionally, be more specific and tell the reader what the “discrepancies in the observed symptoms between the two pathologies” are and other relevant information, as this sentence is vague.
 * Symptoms: When you say “wide areas”, do you mean around the whole body or wide areas around the upper body? Is ANIM only found (at least to researchers’ knowledge) in muscles of the limbs and upper shoulder girdle?
 * Epidemiology: The second full sentence (“Two of the most common….) can definitely be divided into two sentences, as it appeared to present multiple important facts worth making into individual, yet relevant, series of sentences. In other words, “Two….steroid use” can be one sentence. Change around the wording and you can easily make another sentence in regards to the effects of drugs for rheumatism.
 * ‘Drug Induced Myopathy’: Where do the symptoms from drug induced myopathy typically occur? It is essential, when available, to provide the orientation of the symptoms, pain, etc. However, a few sentences down, we are oriented to the quadriceps, pectoral, biceps, lower back, and/or abdominal region – is this referring to all the same issue? If so, this is repetitive and rather confusing. This is pretty nit-picky, but throughout this section, there are too many sentences beginning with “symptoms”; can you find a different way to begin those sentences? Additionally, I suggest changing this sentence “This requires immunosuppressive therapy due to that fact that this side effect will persist long after a patient is removed from statin therapy”.[1] To something along the lines of: “Once patients are removed off of statin therapy, negative side effects are common. In order to lessen the persistence of these side effects, Further treatment, such as immunosuppressive therapy, is typically assigned.” [1] Remove “also” in the second sentence in the section beginning with “Corticosteroids”. Change: “Corticosteriods have also been found to cause some degree of muscle atrophy, and in some cases, local or diffuse cell death.[2] To something such as: “Corticosteroids have also been found to cause not only some degree of muscle atrophy, but also local or diffused cell death.” [2] Also, you can link “vacular” to an already existing Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuole. Lastly, I suggest spelling out LDH versus only providing the acronym.
 * Diet: Add a comma after kelp. Also, I suggest a change to the series of sentences: {“Hyperthyroidism is one of the most common ways to acquire ANIM.”[3] A hyperactive thyroid gland produces excessive amounts of hormones T3 and T4, which can increase metabolism rates, as well as increase the response of the Sympathetic Nervous System. Hyperthyroidism exhibits pathologies similar to signs of an epinephrine overdose, in addition to weakness of the shoulder girdle, and more serious weakness in the core and limbs. Those with Hyperthyroidism have also been identified as asymptomatic.”} Add a comma in after adenotonsillar hypertrophy, and remove ‘while’: {“Vitamin D induced ANIM is most commonly associated with sleep deprivation as it induces tonsillar and adenotonsillar hypertrophy, as well as, weakening the airway muscles. This poses a threat to an individual because of the dangers behind such sleep deprivation: initiating induced sleep apnea and overall sleep disruption.} Is it appropriate to have the sentence beginning with ‘trauma’ under the diet section? If so, what type of trauma are you referring to? Additionally, add an ‘a’ after also.
 * Diagnosis: Correction to sentence: {“This is used not only to analyze the time frame with which the patient began to express symptoms, but also to see if the disease is within the patient's family's history, to check medication or drug use history, and to see if the patient has suffered any trauma due to illness or infection”.} Additionally, remove the comma after inflammatory myopathy in the first paragraph after the list of ‘more advanced testing equipment’. Lastly, put (EMG) after Electromyographies, as you refer to the acronym later.
 * Treatment: Add a space in between non-steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs and (NSAIDs).
 * Research Direction: The first sentence of this section is redundant. Instead of repeating yourself by saying “during diagnosis”, maybe you can find something that indicates specific times for which this myopathy is diagnosed (i.e., in the womb, child birth, physicals, etc.). If you cannot find anything along those lines, simply just delete “during diagnosis”. I suggest the following sentence change: {“These tests are costly and are thus best used to confirm rather than screen for a diagnosis of a specific myopathy, again the hope is that as these methods are improved upon costs will decline and they will become more accessible.[2]} → “Due to the cost of these tests, they are best used to confirm rather than screen for a diagnosis of a specific myopathy. It is the hope of researchers that as these testing methods improve in function, both costs and access will become more manageable”.[2] I suggest another change in the following series of sentences: {“Certainly classification schemes that better define the wide range of myopathies will help clinicians to gain a better understanding of how to think about these patients”} → {Classification schemes with improved detection of the wide-range of myopathies are necessary in order to gain a better understanding on how to successfully treat these patients.} Additionally, there is room to improve the most appropriate therapies, especially through a pathophysiological approach (of what? Insert that here). Change ‘incompletely’ to ‘not completely’, and add an ‘A’ before “Decreased availability of…”
 * Citations: Under the ‘epidemiology’ section, the first paragraph fails to cite any sources. Also, you need to add sources under the ‘screening’ section, as there are zero currently visible.
 * Overall: Be consistent in using either Acquired non-inflammatory myopathy or ANIM. Once you refer to it as ANIM in the beginning of your page, I believe that that gives you the opportunity to utilize it throughout your page. Indicating the threat of life due to this disease may or may not be necessary – up to you - just a thought.
 * Article Review: I reviewed the article by Owczarek, Jasiñska, and Orszulak-Michalak (2005). This use of this article within your page is clearly intended (primarily) for the drug-induced myopathy section. It remained stable in presenting multiple types of theories, as well as acknowledging the various types of studies facilitated by different researchers. I was intrigued when reading about the alcoholic myopathies, as I am personally interested in substance abuse and the effect that such addictions have on the body. Despite my bias, why not include alcohol, specifically discussion about ethanol intoxication? Just as a specific point, on page 28, we see that there is a similar effect of such intoxication to the statin therapy for which you discuss more in-depth already (“Similarly to ethanol intoxication, statin therapy may impair the stability of the skeletal muscle…); this parallel notion is interesting, and this article certainly provides more than enough information for the scope of this assignment. Last bullet-point under ‘drug induced myopathy’ is getting way too close to being word-for-word from the article. Make sure you are avoiding that and making it into your own words! Lastly, the article makes a strong push to inform readers that when drugs are used simultaneously, this behavior poses a risk for patients to experience drug-induced myopathies. Therefore, stressing the importance of awareness and respect towards drugs, not only from the pharmaceutical companies, but also medical providers and the patients themselves. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further clarifications and/or have any questions about my review. I look forward to seeing your final work. MU Senior2014 (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review 1
MU Senior2014, Thank you for your very thorough, and detailed review. We incorporated many suggestions of yours throughout the article, so our revisions will be addressed in the order of the article.
 * Introduction: I agree that there is adequate background information on ANIM to familiarize the reader with what the disease is. It is important to put the topic in context and I did my best to achieve an introduction that presented a non-biased summary of the disease. I agree that my description about "what ANIM is not" is not immediately important. I have made changes that reflect this suggestion by making my discussion on inflammatory myopathy more concise and pertinent to ANIM. I have also removed the part talking about the discrepancies of symptoms because it was very vague and not strongly supported by more than one source. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symptoms: I agree that the term "wide areas" is not descriptive and contradicts the previous statement that ANIM is found in certain tissues and not others. I have removed this term and revised the first sentence to provide a more accurate description that was not so vague. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Drug Induced Myopathy:We went through and added the where the symptoms occurred. After reading your comments, I understood where the confusion was and some of the content was restructured in such a way so that the symptoms were mentioned first or highlighted. As we reviewed our own article, we noticed the conflict of discussing autoimmune response within our "drug induced myotpathy" section. Autoimmune responses are characteristic of inflammatory myopathy, so that content was removed as to keep remaining content focused on noninflammatory responses. This edition does not contain the autoimmune therapy to which one of your edits was aimed to address. Thank you for your suggestions in sentence structure, they were incorporated into the revisions and the passage is much clearer now! The link was added, and the acronym was addressed. NWcoffee (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diet and Trauma Induced Myopathy  Your grammatical suggestions were incorporated.  The sentence structure was not changed as I believe this depends on personal preference and the sentences flow nicely as they are.  To answer your question about trauma,  the trauma described here is very general.  Any injury caused from an external force is considered trauma and any injury to a muscular area, which is virtually all forms of trauma, can induce ANIM.  However I still have included specification of trauma on muscle tissue.  Thanks for your review.
 * Diagnosis  Your suggestions were incorporated into the revision. Thank you for the grammar and structure advice! Since EMG was referred to earlier in the subsection, Electromyographies was replaced with EMG.
 * Treatment I agree with and used your grammatical suggestions. Thank you.
 * Article ReviewThank you for your input on the source. The reason we chose not to include the alcohol induced myopathies was because they tended to show symptoms of inflammatory myopathy, that is, they showed an immunoresponse and inflammation in the myofibrils as a result. Since some of the symptoms were not clearly characteristic of a noninflammatory response nor specified as such, we chose to omit that information from our page. Thank you for pointing out the one of the key concluding remarks of the article, it is odd that we missed putting it in the article in the first place, but it is included now!
 *  Research Direction Thanks for the input when you run through things so many times you miss a couple of things to make the sentences flow smoother so the extra input is appreciated. You picked up on what I was trying to say and gave some good advice and you'll notice that I incorporated it into the article. Theres not a whole lot listed on this so it's a make the best of a low information situation.--5602krauseb (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I thought you guys did a good job taking a smaller topic and fully expanding on it using the references you had available. The pictures you included were well placed and portrayed important concepts discussed in the article. One thing I would consider changing is taking some of the information you used in the lead paragraph and creating a separate section titled Background (or something like that). There is a ton of good information in those paragraphs, but it seemed a little too detailed for the lead paragraph. Other than that, nice job overall! Syeager.93 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review
It is my belief that the introduction is the correct place to have background information on ANIM while simultaneously providing a coherent and comprehensive summary of the disease. It is important to put the topic in context and I did my best to achieve an introduction that presented a non-biased summary of the disease. I agree that a background section would be beneficial, but I feel that the introduction does a sufficient job of introducing the disease and giving the reader the important information they need to know about ANIM. MU77 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Background seems to be best included at the beginning in order to set the tone seeing as this is such an obscure topic, people would need to be familiarized with it right away if they hope to take anything from the article after they continue to read it.--5602krauseb (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article was well done and gives a lot of information. One suggestion I have is maybe including a “See Also” section right above References and including Wikilinks of related topics that someone reading this would also find useful to read about, such as Inflammatory Myopathy. Another suggestion is making a section for Causes specifically. It seems that the cause information is under the Epidemiology section, which there should be two separate sections for Causes and Epidemiology. Epidemiology is more like statistics or patterns about acquired non-inflammatory myopathy for example, not what is under there currently. Sargento21 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review by Sargento21
Sargento21, thank you for your suggestions to our article. We really liked your idea about a "See Also" section, and that is now included at the bottom of the article. Thank you for your suggestion regarding splitting the epidemiology section into a causes and statistical/pattern section. Merriam-Webster defines epidemiology as "the study of how disease spreads and can be controlled", or in other words, epidemiology considers the causes and effects of diseases. We feel that we have satisfied this definition, so we will be leaving the content currently under that section where it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWcoffee (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review
Introduction- After looking this section over, I think you guys did an amazing job explaning the background in formation on ANIM. There is key background information in there that is truly relevant even though you have a more in-depth topic. The only issue from this section that I would look into perhaps editing would be reword or remove some of the information on where you explain what ANIM is not. I think keeping only a couple sentences on what it is not, and explaining the discrepancies in symptoms observed is good, but only a little should be sufficient in my opinion.

Symptoms- In this section perhaps there is not as much information since the topic is not so broad, but maybe adding some hyperlinks for some of the terms listed would be helpful for others that are not sure what a muscle spasm is. Other than that this section I believe is brief and to the point that is a perfect transition into the next detailed section.

Epidemiology- There are a lot of good useful hyperlinks within this section, the first thing I would mention to maybe look into changing would be within the section of Drug Induced Myopathy, the first paragraph that begins with Prescribed statins seems a bit too much together. Maybe spacing it out into two separate paragraphs may help make it easier to follow by splitting it where you expelling the first symptoms of statins and then the next ones where you describe the symptoms related to statins that inhibit protein synthesis. This is just a suggestion as a reader to help better follow the information since there is a lot about statins within it. Under the Diet section, I believe that there are a few grammatical errors. I do not believe you have to capitalize Sympathetic Nervous System also in the first paragraph about Vitamin D there is a comma needed before the word but. Lastly, from this section I would suggest using a reference in the very first introduction paragraph under Epidemiology, so readers can perhaps see where that background information is obtained from.

Overall Report- For having such a small topic I think you guys did a really good job trying to explain everything that was involved in it. The only issue with trying to include everything was that at times (mentioned above) there was some difficulty in following things because I felt that some things were perhaps repeated or some parts there was too much information as a reader. The use of images is useful and helpful in adding to your page as well, and for how little the topic is I believe the images used are proper as well. Lastly, at times you switch around from using the full term from ANIM too much, so I believe consistently using ANIM after you have mentioned it completely once in the introduction is sufficient.

Source- The source I looked into was the first one by Baer, Alan; Wortmann, and I think you guys did a nice job incorporating the relevant information within the source. You guys included as much as you could from the source, and used it properly whenever needed. When reading through the source and your article side by side I believe maybe putting some sentences more into your own words will be a bit helpful, but you used the source nicely to incorporate as many ideas from it. Especially in the section for Drug Induced Myopathy, I believe that the source was used to the best of it's ability to add information to your page. I do not see any information in the source that you can further add because I feel like you guys hit every needed information properly, but making it more into your own words will be beneficial to you. 134.48.160.175 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)karora19

Response to Primary Review 2
Thank you for reading our article and providing many suggestions to improve this page. Our responses to your suggestions are included in the appropriate sections below:
 * Introduction: Other reviewers have also expressed concern that the end of the introduction goes off topic and presents material on Inflammatory myopathy that is not needed. I feel that it is important to include other variations of myopathies in the introduction so I have kept that part about inflammatory myopathy in the intro, but I have made it more concise and pertinent to ANIM. The discrepancies in symptoms was removed because it was too vague and not supported by enough sources. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symptoms: Hyperlinks have been added to terms that may be unfamiliar to a non-scientifically literate reader. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Epidemiology-Drug Induced Myopathy: Thank you for making the suggestion with regards to the structure of the statins paragraph. Others have brought this to our attention, and after reviewing it, we decided to omit the second half of the information that covered an autoimmune response to statins. This was in conflict with how we defined non-inflammatory myopathy, so once it was taken out, the writing was more coherent and did not jump around as much. As a result, the section will not be cut in half or separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWcoffee (talk • contribs) 07:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Diet and Trauma Induced Myopathy I used your grammatical corrections.  Thank you for them.
 * Source Thank you for your review of the Baer article. Some sections were re-worded to have more original vocabulary, especially within the "Drug Induced Myopathy" section. Thank you for the reminder! NWcoffee (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  Research Direction every now and then it was hard to put it to much in our own words because describing the topic required a certain vocabulary to accurately describe it, and putting it into our own words (or non-scientific jargon if that's what your are implying) so to speak would hurt our ability to accurately convey the information. It was hard at times to find the middle ground between a bombardment of scientific vocabulary and more general terminology.--5602krauseb (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review
I think you guys did an amazing job considering the little information that was available for your topic. The article is well written, and all the information is clear and concise. The sources used follow the copyright laws, and overall it has good spelling and grammar. It has a good amount of sub titles that helps the reader to fully understand the different aspects of the disease. It contains a good amount of verifiable sources and are properly cited on the article. It addresses the main topic of the paper without adding any undesired information. It has a good amount of images that help the reader have visual representation of what is being explained in each section of the article.
 * Introduction: In this section of your article you include the necessary information for the reader to completely grasp the concept of Acquired non-inflammatory myopathy. It gives a really concise abstract of your entire article. The only part that I would eliminate is the beginning of the second paragraph, the part were you describe what is an inflammatory myopathy. Although it is relevant information, I think that it would be better if you included it in one of the other sections.
 * Symptoms: Since there was not a lot of information on the topic I feel that the list of symptoms that was given is short and to the point; however, I would add the source for the list of symptoms. Also for this section you can add more hyperlinks, like muscle spasms or fatigue.
 * Epidemiology: I like the way that images where incorporated in this sections to address some of the of the Epidemiology section. For the Drug induced myopathy section I would use the bullets as second subheadings. For example, in the first bullet say *statins - and then all the information regarding the use of this drug. I feel that it would be easier for the reader to see all the drugs as a subheading and then reading the rest of the information. The diet section is well written.
 * Diagnosis: Overall this was a well written section. Again, I liked how the image is incorporated to describe the EMG used for diagnosis. It also has a good amount of hyperlinks, and I would add ischemic exercise, in the screening section, as another hyperlink.
 * Treatment: This section is really concise and to the point. However, I feel like it's repeating a lot of the information from the Epidemiology section.
 * Article Review: The article I reviewed was the fourth one by D. McCarthy, "The link between vitamin D and sleep medicine". This seems like a good secondary source to use in the article with reputable references. All places were this article was used are correctly cited. You guys took as much information as possible from this article and incorporate it into the wikipedia page. It was mostly used in the Diet section explaining the sleep deprivations related to a deficiency in vitamin D. Although some of the wording is similar to the article, everything is correctly cited. Also there is some good information on Table 3 in the article that talks about the different effects of vitamin D deficiency in different populations, that could be added to the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNEURO (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review 3
Thank you for reading our page and offering suggestions to improve this article. Responses to your suggestions are provided in the appropriate sections below:
 * Introduction: Many reviewers have expressed concern about the involvement of inflammatory myopathy in the introduction section. I have kept the paragraph which talks about inflammatory myopathy in the introduction because it is important for the reader to know that more than one type of diagnosis for a myopathy exists and the distinction between the diagnoses. I have re-written this section to provide a more concise discussion about inflammatory myopathy and made it more pertinent to the topic of ANIM. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symptoms: Hyperlinks have been added to familiarize a non-scientifically literate reader with challenging concepts and vocabulary. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Epidemiology Thank you for your suggestions to implement subheadings under the "Drug Induced Myopathy". The subheadings were added, and the content looks more organized with the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWcoffee (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diagnosis The link was added, thank you for the suggestion! NWcoffee (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diet and Trauma Induced Myopathy: Thanks for your compliment! I also thank you for the review of the McCarthy article.  I agree with you that Table 3 contains good information but I do not think it contains the right kind of information for our page.  The effects of vitamin D based on the afflicted population is beyond of the scope of this article.  I did not want to delve to deeply into vitamin D and make that section too long.  I hope you understand.
 * Treatment: Thank you for your compliments.  Due to the nature of the disease the main avenue of treatment is to treat the underlying causes.  These are discussed in the Epidemiology section but the treatment of these underlying causes is solely in the treatment section.  I feel it is best to leave it as is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockton Whitfield (talk • contribs) 04:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I've looked at most of the pages done by our class, and this is the longest and most detailed I've seen! Very informative, and it is obvious that your group spent a ton of time on this. I did not see any major errors, nor did I see any spelling or grammar mistakes. The sections were divided well and created a good flow for the page. I noticed that some of the symptoms appear to be repeated both in the bullet points as well as the preceding sentence. For this, I would pick either describing the symptoms in that sentence or with bullet points. Another easy fix I saw would be giving your first picture a subtitle. However, I do appreciate multiple pictures throughout the page. Besides that, bravo! --Thatsomaven (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I think it is a great article. I love that you have many images throughout the article. The images make it easier to visualize the information in each section. The sections did seem to flow when reading but there are a few grammar errors that need to be fixed. --Tgmarquette (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review
Very well written! Excellent job utilizing the limited amount of information available. The page is clear and for the most part concise and seems verifiable with a good list of reliable sources. The introduction maybe has a little unnecessary information. Good use of relevant images and the article is not biased in anyway.

Introduction: Very descriptive and relevant information providing readers with a thorough explanation of ANIM. I really like the clarification/emphasis put on the distinctness of the topic compared to inflammatory myopathy, however, the information on inflammatory myopathy is kind of overabundant. Maybe try to minimize/condense the information of inflammatory myopathy.

Symptoms: Does "spread over wide areas rather than pinpoint locations" refer to only muscles of the limbs and upper shoulder girdle

Epidemiology: "It is not uncommon to for drugs to damage muscle fibers."- remove to. Good use of images and hyperlinks in this section. I like how the information is laid out in two sections.

Treatment: Add a space in between: anti-inflamatory drugs and (NSAIDs).

Citations: Only one provided in the introduction and none listed in the screening section- probably a good idea to reveal where that information was pulled from. Otherwise excellent job citing your sources throughout the article.

Article Review: I reviewed article #2 "Drug-induced myopathies. An overview of the possible mechanisms". Pharmacol Rep 57 (1): 23–34. I found that this was a reliable secondary source and while information relevant to your specific topic was sparse, you did a great job finding it and incorporating it into your specific disease. Sheldon92 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review 4
Thank you for reading our article and providing suggestions to improve this page. Our comments to your suggestions are included in the appropriate sections below:
 * Introduction: In this section I wanted to make sure there was a large amount of background information on ANIM to provided a coherent and comprehensive summary. It is important to put the topic in context and I did my best to achieve an introduction that presented a non-biased summary of the disease. I agree that my description on inflammatory myopathy is overabundant and not entirely necessary. Therefore I have made changes to that part of the introduction to make information on inflammatory myopathy more condensed and more pertinent to the topic of ANIM. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symptoms: The "spread over wide areas" sentence has been removed because it was vague and contradictory to previous descriptions about only certain tissues being affected. The symptoms section now includes a concrete description about specific areas that are commonly affected. MU77 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Epidemiology: The grammar edition was made, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWcoffee (talk • contribs) 08:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diet and Trauma Induced Myopathy: Thanks for your compliment! I really tried to make the article visually engaging.
 * Treatment: Thank you for your grammatical corrections.  They have been applied.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockton Whitfield (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article Review Thank you for the compliment! NWcoffee (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article is very well far on its way to being perfected. I enjoyed reading this article. One particular thing that I thought added a lot to the content of your article were the images that were displayed in almost every section of the article. Whenever visuals can correspond to the information, that positively impacts the article as a whole. Also, it was very easy to read. The right phrases and words were linked to help with the understanding of what constitutes Acquired non-inflammatory myopathy. And with that being said, you all did a good job with elaborating on the aspects that needed clarification. The suggestions made above by the primary viewers are good suggestions that I would also agree with. However, overall this article is a very good start already!HawksHockey21 (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Finally! An article with some images! Your group did a very good job of implementing images throughout the article. The images really help the reader grasp what you are trying to tell them. While reading though the sections I did see some spelling and grammar mistakes which you should look out for because we are only allowed on mistake :/ Otherwise, I think the article was very well written and had a good flow. The primary reviews covered much of what should be changed so I won't be a broken record. One suggestion, I think you should create a specific "causes" section to the page. --Jordannetts (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I enjoyed reading this article very much. The images really helped to show the topic. Especially in the diet section showing an image of sleep apnea and connecting the disorder with real life experiences that people can understand. Johnsep12 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article is very well put together. It is well-organized, and I like your utilization of images. Although you said the bulk of your information came from articles about inflammatory myopathy, I think you all distinguished the difference between inflammatory and noninflammatory well. Every point you make is explained thoroughly, and it is all well-written. I honestly can't come up with any critiques for this article. You all nailed this assignment! -- MUbrooke31 — Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)