Talk:Hypofrontality

The edits that we have done are meant to cover all relevant aspects of Hypofrontality because there was not a great deal of secondary literature. Semaj311 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review
I think this article was written well. There is a nice flow to the article. There is good scientific information given, but it is written in a way that can be well understood by the readers. I would say read through it carefully to check for grammar mistakes. Also check to make sure you like the phrasing of everything becuase I thought there were a few places where the wording was a little bit tough to follow or seemed like it could be more concise. I think this article is well done in that it has very broad coverage and covers most of the aspects needed to understand the disease, except symptoms. Im not sure if you don't have any information on the sympotms but I believe the disease would be better understood by the readers if there were symptoms included. I know its says that Hypofrontality is a symptom but are there other relatable or commonly heard of symptoms that go with it. However, I really liked the associated medical conditions part, because it was very interesting to learn about how it was affecting them. The article appeared neutral to me. The images are awesome! They contribute well to the parts of the article they matched with and they look good and enhance the reading experience.

I reviewed article 5, hypofrontality in schizophrenia distributed dysfunctional circuits in neuroleptic- naive patients. This source looked like it had a of good information. The information cited in the article from source 10, seems accurately cited and interoperated to me. I think the mechanism section especially well done most of the information in that section was from article 10 but from what  I can tell the information was transferred and presented very well. Are you sure this is a secondary source because it appears to be a primary source from what I can tell because it is the direct information from the experiment itself. So I think it is important to make sure your sources are secondary. This is a very good article. I think you should just do a little more proof reading and check to make sure you are using only secondary articles. (Spidey1994 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC))

Response
Hello Spidey1994. Thank you for your feedback! Our group met and we read through the article a few times to try to fix any grammatical or syntax errors that we might have made. According to our understanding and the research that we have done, there are not really any symptoms associated with hypofrontality. Since hypofrontality is a symptom itself, it does not cause other symptoms to arise; we think this is because hypofrontality is the collective name given to the manifestation of multiple neurophysiological changes. Also, since hypofrontality is associated with many neurological conditions, there are many different symptoms that exist at the same time as hypofrontality in affected patients. This makes it difficult to create a list of common symptoms that occur in addition to hypofrontality because the list would be highly conditional, and we think that this could add confusion to our article. However, we do agree that it would be nice to include this section if the information was available.

In response to your review of our sources, we are confident that source 10 is a secondary source. While it does contain information about an experiment, it discusses a summary of the experimentation rather than experimental results, making it a secondary source. Additionally, the source is tagged as a review on PubMed, and focuses heavily on a review of current primary literature in the field.

Thank you once again for your positive review. We hope that we have adequately fixed or addressed any and all of the current and future problems or questions that you may have about our article.

Semaj311 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Bscheidt (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

9635wilmota (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review
The article is well written. The article could be read through a couple more times to fix grammar mistakes. There are some phasing problems in the intro, specifically with the last two sentences. I think they could flow together better and you could get to the point faster. Also in the Treatment and Mechanism section there was repetition with reverse and restore. Try using counteract or something like that to rephrase the sentences. You guys did a good job of hitting all aspects and having a broad coverage of the topic. I think rearranging the sections would help the reader understand the disease better, especially the associated medical conditions. I think if you moved that section to the bottom the reader would be able to learn about the disorder first and then learn about how it may affect other diseases. But it was fun to learn how it affected them! Also, do you have any symptoms for hypofrontality? I know in the definition you say that hypofrontality is a symptom itself and that it is hard to detect under resting conditions but I didn't know if there was any specific symptoms for it. I like the pictures! The fMRI scan looks really cool. The article also seemed to be written neutral so I wouldn't worry about that.

I reviewed article number seven, Hypofrontality in neuroleptic-naive patients and in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Assessment with xenon 133 single-photon emission computed tomography and the Tower of London. From what I found the article looked correctly source. They also used a fair amount of information from it. I didn't find information about the major depressive article but it may have just gotten lost while I was reading. Also, the one I could find was the original article. Make sure that your sources are secondary articles. I also don't know how much research has been done on it recently but maybe look for a more updated article. You don't cite it often so it's not a huge deal but the article is over 20 years old.

I would worry about grammar and rearranging some things and making sure your sources are secondary articles but otherwise it was a good article! -Mmich25

Response
Thank you for your positive feedback! We read through the article a few times and corrected a few of the grammatical errors and reworded a few things. The order of the sections follows the guidelines for a medical article on Wikipedia, so we are going to leave that order as is, but it is understandable that the mechanism should be in front of the diseases. As for the questions about the source, it was already on the page when we got it, suggesting that it is okay for Wikipedia use, and it can be found under the review search criteria on PubMed. Also, the information that we used from the article was background and conclusion literature, not new research. Thank you for your feedback, it was greatly appreciated! :) Bscheidt (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Semaj311 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

9635wilmota (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall this article provides a nice overview of a complex symptom. The information seems to be well researched and is presented in a well thought out and organized manner. Most of the article is written well, however there are quite a few grammatical errors and some of the sentences seem redundant or awkwardly written. For example the following three sentences “These mechanism names can be combined to be called neurophysiological mechanisms. Currently, the exact neurophysiological mechanisms that cause hypofrontality are unknown. However, there are some possible mechanisms that are plausible and would account for many of the effects of hypofrontality.” Could easily be combined into one sentence for more effective and concise wording. I think reading the article over and improving these issues will make the article much stronger. The information provided in the article accomplish the author’s goal of giving an overview of the symptom and the coverage is broad covering all the necessary and important information such as definition, mechanism, medical conditions it is associated with, and research being done on the topic. I think all the sections do a nice job, especially the mechanism section, but in all the sections, especially the medical conditions section, there are some sentences that are not needed or are too general and need more clarification, or specification. The writing and presentation of the information is neutral and very well done. The visuals provided were both really cool and were very nice touches! They really made the article look interesting and more professional and fit in well with the information provided, great job! I reviewed the first article cited "Functional MR imaging of confounded hypofrontality" and found that it was a good secondary source and the information provided in the article seemed to be used mostly in the introductory paragraph to give an overview of the topic. From what I can tell the information in the article is all cited properly. I did wonder about the definition section and if any of that information should be cited? Overall excellent job guys I think it will be a good article with a few improvements! --Lambchop22 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Response Thanks for all the input on the article. We will be sure to look at the grammatical errors throughout the article and double check the awkward wording you mentioned. Also nice catch on the citation in the definition section of the article. It seems like the citation didn't show up. Thanks again.

9635wilmota (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semaj311 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Reviews
Notes from Reviewer: I enjoyed learning about hypofrontality. It was an interesting topic to learn about since I was able to connect the psychological disorders to what I have been learning about in my Abnormal Psychology class. One recommendation would be to have the Mechanism section before the Associated medical conditions as this will give any person a better understanding of the mechanism behind hypofrontality before learning about how it connects to the disorders. I also suggest expanding on the Major depressive disorder and how it connects to the topic. Above all, the article seems to meet the 6 criteria for a good article. Dfernandez14 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought that the article was well written. It covered a lot of specifics concerning how hypofrontality leads to behavioral and psychiatric defects. It was very interesting to learn that many diseases are affected by hypofrontality including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The page has good content. However, I would recommend moving the associated medical conditions section towards the bottom of the page so that the reader can better understand the condition before learning how it affects other diseases. It might also be interesting to add a section for symptoms of hypofrontality. Overall, the article was well written and covered the topic in sufficient detail. --Sweng15 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review: Overall, I thought the article was well written and effective in conveying pertinent information about hypofrontality. I particularly liked the usage of pictures and GIFs in several portions of the article. However, a few specific improvement could be made. For example, in the Schizophrenia subheading in the Associated Medical Conditions section. The article states, “these differences are often stem from…” the “are” in this sentence could be removed to help improve the sentence. Moreover, in the “Treatment and Management” section, the article states, “This suggests that hypofrontality is not cause exclusively by…”cause should be replaced with caused. Additionally, in the “Research” section, the article states, “but there a number of research projects have been conducted, leading to progress in recognizing the signs of the symptom.” This sentence would read better as, “but there are a number of research projects that have been conducted, leading to progress in recognizing signs of the symptoms.”  This entire section could use a read through, there are a few spots were comma use is necessary.

ShieldsMU (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The article adds a lot of interesting and useful information about hypofrontality. I would suggest rereading the article again because there are some grammatical errors throughout the article. The "Mechanism" section is very vague and you seems to be making some assumptions because some of your statements are not cited. For example, in paragraph 2 of this section the first 2 sentences are essentially saying the same thing. Sentence 3 is also very unclear and does not add much to help clarify the mechanism you are describing. Paragraph 3 also suffers from the same problems. I think you should rewrite this section of the article because it is very unclear and I feel like it is a crucial section. Finally, some of your references are not liked to the source and you should add these links so readers can do directly to the article if they want to read it.AGBiology (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading the article! It was very informative and a very interesting topic. I did notice that there were quite a few grammatical errors and some places, particularly the "Schizophrenia" section, were a bit hard to follow. I would recommend doing a good read through of the article and try reading the sections out loud as you go through them. This sometimes helps in seeing/hearing how well the writing flows. There was a lot of good information and the writing was easy to follow and get through, for the most part. Just make sure to proof-read it again, and you should be good to go! Mychm52 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC) I enjoyed the article, it was well done especially when it came to explain the disorders in a manner that was easy to comprehend as an average reader. I also really liked that you began by explaining and defining your topic as well. Sometimes it is a good to right away know what the topic is instead of having to completely read an entire article and then think about what the article meant. So good job with that! Maybe it is the Wisconsinite in me, but referencing the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test was really interesting to me. it amazing how sometimes the simplest test can give you such great information about disorders. Overall Great job!Josecarlos44 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Reviews
Thank you all for your feedback! Our group met and we read through the article a few times to try to fix any grammatical or syntax errors that we might have made. We also considered rearranging the sections of our article to put the Mechanism section before the Associated medical conditions section; however, we decided against it. Currently, our page is set up in agreement with the Wikipedia medical guidelines for a symptom, and we think that it makes sense to keep the associated medical guidelines early in the article, so that readers will know if an article is relevant to a certain medical condition without having to search our article. Once again, our group thanks you all for your reviews, and we hope that we have addressed any problems that you may have with our article.

Semaj311 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Bscheidt (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

9635wilmota (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography of proposed sources to be added:
Semaj311 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Editing as an Assignment
Hello everyone, I'm a psychologist currently enrolled in a master's program focused on "Neuroscience" at Uskudar University in Istanbul, Turkey. I've taken on the task of revising this Wikipedia entry. I've successfully completed all the training modules on Wikipedia to enhance my editing skills. As part of my coursework for the master's program in 'Biotechnology in Neuroscience,' I've chosen to work on the article titled 'Hypofrontality.' My objective is to enhance the overall quality of the article by improving references, citations, and addressing areas that need refinement. If you have any inquiries, feel free to ask. Additionally, I welcome any feedback or support for my edits.

Best regards, Scientific Pen (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)