Talk:Dyssynergia

Secondary Review
Overall, the information given in the article was very detailed and well done. There are a few grammar errors that I would recommend fixing, especially by adding some commas and re-wording some awkward sentences. The headings look good! It's easy to tell which headings are main headings and which are sub-headings. Under the medication heading it says "not not". I would change that. I would also recommend moving the picture because it cuts off one of the sentences to a much lower line. Otherwise, great job!Emnett1031 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The article was good overall. A couple of suggestions would be to fix the grammar because some sentences were awkward and do not flow well. Also, make sure to add in the appropriate punctuation, a lot of commas were missing. The grammar and punctuation mistakes were mostly found in the Types of Dyssynergia section. Also, I would suggest fixing the placement of the photo in the urethral stent section because it breaks up the last sentence. But, overall I thought the article was easy to read and very informational. Good job! Kclarke11 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This is a very detailed article, especially the Diagnosis and most of the treatment sections. I would make two slight suggestion. I would make is that in the introduction, maybe list the different types of dyssynergia before you dive right into them. The second, is that the picture of the stent is appropriate in the urethral stent section, however, I would say that because the picture is of a heart, there should be some caption or description that connects the picture with the section. Garrettmu18 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Garrett

Dyssynergia

Overall Comments: This article has good information, however the way in which it’s communicated could use more work. There isn’t a consistent flow within this article as it transitions from section to section. Also there’s a large number of grammatical and spelling errors. Some areas in specific: The second introductory paragraph could use rewording. I get the point that it’s trying to convey, its just the manner in which its presented causes difficulty. The first paragraph (Ramsey hunt syndrome) starts off with an incomplete sentence. and then the following sentence “where there is paralysis” doesn't make sense grammatically. For the Dyssnergia esophogaus, it may be easier to rework this paragraph and its purpose by using the word deglutition. There are also grammatical errors present in the Anorectal manometry paragraph, and try to make this two instead of one paragraph. ( I will not exhaust my review by continuing to point out each error, these are just general ones). Also in your paper you mentioned Bladder Sphincter Dyssynergia, however later in the paper you referenced Detrussor Sphincter Dyssynergia. It’s not a big discrepancy however consistency is important. As a recommendation, whoever was responsible for the botox section should read this article: Toxins (Basel). 2016 Mar 23;8(4). pii: E88. doi: 10.3390/toxins8040088.

A good article is:

Well written: As mentioned in the above paragraph, theres great information however there’s still some grammatical issues that need work.

Verifiable with no original research: The article has multiple articles used as sources, however none of these are original research. They are secondary sources.

Broad in it’s coverage: As mentioned earlier, this article has great information and I like the format the group decided to present the information in. The content of the information flows, its just an improvement in grammar is needed.

Neutral: The writing was very unbiased and remained as close to text as possible.

Stable : not needed

Illustrated: The pictorial representation of the stent is nice, however it lacks a caption giving a brief overview of its contents.

Verified Article: A Case of Ramsay Hunt-Like Syndrome by Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 In the article I can see where the symptoms of the syndrome come from, however I don’t see the connection to dyssnergia. Let alone where the other names of this syndrome in relation to dyssnergia come from. Although this article is correctly cited and contains partially correct information, theres a missing link between some of the information in the article on wikipedia and the article from which they received their information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nettap01 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): AKon10, TEckert412, Skakos18, Ewiegand.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well written: I would say the content is all there for this topic, but the wording is odd in some spots and many of the paragraphs seem choppy like you're just listing things off rather than writing an article about this disease. Additionally, you tend to put a lot of things within parentheses that either are unnecessary or should be written in the sentence normally. For example, the digit comment under rectal examinations seemed unnecessary while the ideas within the parentheses under the anorectal manometry should've been included as part of the original sentence.

2. Verifiable with no original research: You guys have 12 sources (one is listed twice) that are appropriate for use. I looked at the article by John Stoffel "Detrusor sphincter dyssynergia: a review of physiology, diagnosis and treatment strategies". The way you cited it was appropriate-although you have it listed as two different sources (3 and 11). However, I think more information could be retrieved from this article to give your page more information. The treatment and diagnosis sections on your page seem bare compared to the amount of information this article alone gives-let alone if you could retrieve more info on all the dyssnergias you refer to.

Side note: Make sure you are consistent when referring to this type of dyssynergia. "DSD" is never reffered to in the "types" section but is later during treatment.

3. Broad in coverage: You guys didn't leave a goal for the page on its talk page so I'm not sure what you are aiming for. I think it is informative but could include more detail.

4. Neutral: This article has no bias.

5. Illustrated: You guys have one image which needs to be edited for text wrapping. This article could use more images to engage readers especially when talking about the types of dysnnergia or the diagnosis.

Overall I think this article is a good start. It needs more information to it or rewriting for flow so that it doesn't appear short and choppy to the reader. Images should be added. Consistency in references to things needs to be checked for. I would also try to talk more about the relation to the brain-you bring up the parts of the brain in the intro and then never really reinforce that connection later on. Pottera1129 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback to our article. I do not know how the one source was posted twice but we will remove it. As we did not do a proper edit when originally uploading it to the mainframe, we anticipated on making grammer corrections as well as possibly rephrasing sentences to give better flow once we got the general overview on how our article would look. As for the picture, we do not have any viewing issues when we have seen it on the page, but that will be looked into as several people have told us that same comment as well. To avoid plagiarism, the information from the one source you viewed was summarized, and reworded as well as we could, but we could also go back and see what further edits we can do to the page. AKon10 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Group Goal
Due to the broad nature of Dyssynergia and lack of information that previously existed on this Wikipedia page, our goal was to expand on different types/cases of Dyssynergia, the different ways in which one can be diagnosed with Dyssynergia, and the different techniques used to clinically treat Dyssynergia. Skakos18 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
Well written – I think in your introduction you should introduce the different types of dyssynergia. It is a little confusing to a reader when we immediately go into a subsection of the different types of the dyssnergia. Even if it seems that it is repetitive I think that is how most Wikipedia articles flow. I think you should just use the words in parenthesis in your article because you are not writing for a medical doctor or scientist but rather a high school educated student. Most likely a high school educated student has no idea what otalgia or detrusor means for example so it would be easier for them and flow smoother if you just say ear ache or muscle wall of bladder.

Verifiable with no original research – All sources seem to be secondary sources with the exception of the first source, which is a dictionary definition. Not sure why you cited one source twice (3 and 11).

Broad in coverage – Article does a good job of covering a broad range of topics, but it might be helpful to the reader to lay out more of an outline in the introductory paragraph so we know what will be covered in the article.

Neutral – Article does not have a bias.

Stable - not being evaluated

Illustrated – There is a formatting error with the picture. It probably should go to the side of the words and also have a caption, but it is an interesting/informative diagram.

Overall I think you have good quality information for your article. Some easy changes to improve your Wikipedia article would be to add more links to your terms in your article to other Wikipedia topics. Even if it seems obvious what that term means to you, Wikipedia has a very broad range of readers and thus it might be beneficial to link terms like spinal cord, brain stem, sacral, urinary sphincter, etc.

Source review: “Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) from WebMD. I did not think we were allowed to use sources from WebMD for this project since WebMD is listed as a poor source in the source guidelines and it is recommended to directly cite more established literature when possible. There is a works cited in the WebMD article of a source that appears to be a legitimate secondary source so that may be a much better source to cite in your article. The information in your article does match up with the information in the WebMD source in terms of what a digital rectal examination is, but I could not find any mention of the word dyssynergia in the WebMD article as problem that they are looking for when performing a DRE. Maybe it was called another name in the WebMD article and I just missed that name.Vschloegel (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback to our article. We have got a lot of comments about the picture and the text that goes with it. We have not viewed that before, so we will look into correcting that. As for introducing the types of dyssynergia in the introduction we will take your suggestion and add that. We found a new article to replace the one from WebMD so that correction will be made as well. AKon10 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well Written - Fair amount of spelling/grammar mistakes that are an easy fix and will make a big difference in the quality of your article. For example, the sentence containing "...esophageal achalasia is during swallowing a failure to relax..." needs work. There are several sentences like this throughout the page that are unclear and difficult to follow. Check for comma placement and correct usages of homophones (ex. there vs. their). I would recommend leaving out words like "essentially" that lack precision (ex. found in Defecography studies section) as well as generalizations such as "most brain damage..." that sound a little bit unreliable (ex. in introduction). I hope this does not come across harsh. These are minor edits, but I think they will add a lot to your credibility as authors.

2. Verifiable with no original research - References and citations look good; it appears to have been done appropriately/correctly.

3. Broad in its coverage - In terms of meeting your team's goals, I think you did a pretty solid job. You managed to cover a good variety of types, diagnoses, and treatments.

4. Neutral - The article is unbiased.

5. Illustrated - The image you chose is helpful, certainly, in understanding the function of a stent, however the formatting is off. It is confusing (to me at least) that the image is under the title "urethral stents", but shows a cardiac stent. It also seems unusually large in comparison to the very short blurb about urethral stents.

Source Review - I chose "A pictorial presentation of 3.0 Chicago Classification for esophageal motility disorders". This is a secondary source and appears to have been cited correctly. The section where you mentioned this article is very short and could use some more explanation. While this is not a terribly extensive article, I think there is more information that you could take from it for clarification.

Really interesting topic. Overall, well organized and well done. Good job, team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosejammies (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Moosejammies (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review. We realize we had a lot of grammer mistakes when uploading it to the mainframe and our intentions have been to correct those and do a proper edit by the final day to work on the pages. Our first goal before those types of edits was to make sure our page was outlined properly. We have recieved comments about alignment of the figure from other reviewers, and we do not see any formating errors, but will further look into resolving any issues other readers are having. AKon10 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hey guys!

Just wanted to give you guys a pat on the back for your hard work. The organization of the page and breakdown flowed smoothly and for the most part, made it an easy read. There are somethings that I want to point out though that can improve this article. There are some grammar mistakes that I would like to point out. The first sentence under the Ramsay Hunt Syndrome is not a full sentence. Try to combine it with the next sentence as you did in the next three types of dyssynergia. Also some sections sound choppy with lots of short sentences. These can be made to flow a lot smoother for an easier read. Lastly, I want to point out that the figure under urethral stents. First, the figure is kind of confusing knowing that it shows a heart stent while you were talking about a urethral stent. Maybe mention that they work similarly to avoid confusion. Second, it shifted one of your lines lower than expected. Should be an easy fix though! Once again, good job!

Kuya365 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Source (Marquette BIOL 3501)
This article was well written, as it was able to provide large amounts of detail in a concise manner. The only issue found was that there were a few grammatical errors causing the sentences to read choppy. On a more cheerful note, the high number of subsections provided an easy way to follow the logic of the article, so well done. Besides some grammatical errors sprinkled throughout the article, it was well written. Connor.archer (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)connor.archer

Primary Review
Well Written- Overall well written article, just some grammar errors that can be fixed to make the article flow a little more smoothly. This could help make the presented information much more clear and easier to understand, specifically in the types Dyssnynergia section. It was written in a stating of facts manner instead of flowing like other wikipedia articles I have read. Another section that could be edited for fluidity was the Anorectal Manometry section. I believe that the different types of techniques could be split as separate paragraphs, and then those could be edited so that they are little shorter, concise, and a bit easier to understand. The overall information was great, just the small easily fixable grammatical mistakes seemed to be the only problems I noticed.

Verifiable with no original research-All references and citations appear to check out.

Broad In Coverage- Did a good job of covering a variety of types, diagnosis procedures, and treatment options.

Neutral: The article was unbiased

Stable: N/A

Illustrated: There is a picture but it is not positioned correctly.

Verified Article: I chose to review Patient Information on Anorectal Manometry. It appears to be an appropriate secondary source and citation was done properly. It is clear where the information was used in the article and appropriately so. The information as correctly conveyed within the article. Andrewh998 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. We realized that we had grammer errors and planned on correcting those by the final submission date. With those types of edits, we also plan on correcting our flow of the page to make it more fluid.AKon10 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review (BIOL 3501)
This was generally well written. In the introduction, maybe combine everything into one paragraph instead of three different sections. Also, I think it may be helpful to introduce the cause of Dyssynergia before talking about damage to the spinal cord. I really enjoy how you formatted the whole article. The three main sections split up into its subsections helps for navigation purposes. Just a quick note, there is a formatting issue for Urethral Stents. A few other things to fix would be awkward sentence structures and some grammar issues here and there. Other than the things mentioned, it is nicely done. Chinski72 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)chinski72

Secondary review
The opening sentences really gave a good background understanding in such a condensed form to flow into the article easily. The organization of it also made it helpful to follow with the subtitles under the main headings. The only thing to consider would be to cover a broader range of topics, but given the time and goal of the assignment it was well written.