Talk:Akinetic mutism

anterior artery occlusion
Proposing that anterior artery occlusion be included as a reason for its cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AriaNo11 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

updates
I wanted to inform you I've been doing extensive research and talking to professionals in order to update this page. I find akinetic mutism extremely interesting, and I am currently in a neuroscience class where part of our assignment is to update a neuroscience stub. I'll be adding information over the next few weeks. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or feedback to my additions. Thanks! Crowen4 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I went in and added all of the content I have been researching. I kept the original content of the page, but rearranged it to fit in with the rest of the page. Please let me know of any suggestions or feedback! Thanks! Crowen4 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)
1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

also very respectful of previous work

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2

included actual case studies _______________

Total: 20 out of 20

Ana Minchew (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 1 (I thought the page required a little bit more encyclopedic information)

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2

Total: 19 out of 20

I found the case studies to be really interesting. I think its needs a little bit more encyclopedic info. and some fine tuning. For example, the treatment intro paragraph is talking more about diagnosis than the treatment. Since diagnosis is different from treatment, having those separate would be clearer. Overall really good.

Dmodi6 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Article Critique By Tuan Nguyen
1. Quality of Information: 1

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

Total = 18/20

I would like to see a bit more information in each subsection and if you can, cite some red link too, other than that, this page is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguyen306 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)