Talk:Hypokinesia

We LavigneNSCI101 and Alex.traxler have uploaded a new draft and will continue working on it. We welcome your comments. Alex.traxler (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We LavigneNSCI101 and Alex.traxler are two undergraduate neuroscience students from Middlebury College that will be continuing to update this page until December 7, 2013 as part of a class assignment. LavigneNSCI101 (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Combine with Hypoactivity
A search in PubMed returns 4102 pubs for "hypoactivity" and 2845 for "hypokinesia". Most of these articles are the same: As a search for "hypokinesia OR hypoactivity" returns 4102 articles and a search for "hypokinesia AND hypoactivity" returns 2845.

In other words, hypokinesia is always associated with hypoactivity (but not the reverse). Perhaps therefore, the main page should be "Hypoactivity" and it should be written that "Hypoactivity is also frequently called hypokinesia". Besh (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Difference between Hypoactivity and Hypokinesia
From medical dictionary: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

Main Entry: hy·po·ki·ne·sia Pronunciation: \-kə-ˈnē-zh(ē-)ə, -kī-\ Function: noun
 * abnormally decreased muscular movement (as in spaceflight)—compare hyperkinesis 1

Main Entry: hy·po·ac·tive Pronunciation: \-ˈak-tiv\ Function: adjective
 * less than normally active

Thus, it seems hypokinesia has a specific reference to muscular movement. Since most animals generate self-movement through their musculature, hypokinesia results in hypoactivity. Besh (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment 1
A well done, informative article. There is a good balance of links to other Wiki pages to support your material, as well as sufficient citations to validate your information. As a suggestion, the way that you divide up your sections makes it seem like there's an imbalance of information on your topic. Is there a different way you can label the topics and subtopics so that the main headings are of equal levels of importance? For example, 'neurobiology' seems like a larger subsection than 'demographic differentiation' which is much more specific. Also, there is a large chunk of information under Treatments. Is there any way to divide that up so that it makes it easier for the reader to specifically locate something they may be searching for? Other than that, it's clearly written with overall pretty sufficient and relevant information. The images were helpful as well. - Mauliwhitney (talk • contribs) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your suggestions! We moved the smaller subtopics under "Associations," which is hopefully clear enough. We also gave the separate treatments their own bold subtitles so hopefully that helps as well. Alex.traxler (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2
This is a well researched article with a lot of interesting information. One suggestion I have is to make a different section for the different types of hypokinesia because it clutters the beginning of the page. Also the connections to other medical connections part seems sparse compared to the rest so I think it would be beneficial to expand it. Overall great job!Luckykarmz (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful suggestions! We have made a separate category under the table of contents for the different classifications of hypokinesia in a table format, and we also put the expanded information from the connections to other medical conditions section into its own table. LavigneNSCI101 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3
I would consider moving the bulleted list of the hypokinesia spectrum into its own heading rather than have it lengthen the concise description directly below the title. Consider possibly putting the bulleted information to a table, table creation is much easier than you think! Change Tourette Syndrome to Tourette’s Syndrome. I am a huge fan of the intra-wiki links and I see that you have a nice spread of them throughout the article except in the heading “Motor Motivation.” Consider consolidating the headings “Associated Neurotransmitters” and “Neurobiology” into a more general heading like “Pathophysiology.” The heading “Side Effects” also implies that these risks result from some medication, consider changing to “Risks,” “Dangers,” or “Symptoms.” You seem to have very well-cited information, I like that many sentences even have more than one reference. In “Connections to Other Medical Conditions” find a way to bold or underscore the subject of relation before going on to describe the subject (also change your hyphens to dashes please).Nklammer (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input! We made a Pathophysiology section and took your advice on the "Side Effects" section. We also made the minor changes you suggested (changed to dashes, bolded subjects of relation, added links to "Motor Motivation" section). We are working on putting the list into a table currently. Alex.traxler (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We have now put the hypokinetic disease list into a table. LavigneNSCI101 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 4
Formatting

Overall I think the breakdown of the page, the layout, is very intelligent. For example, “Pathophysiology” broken into both “Associated Neurotransmitters” and “Neurobiology” and then the further breakdown of “Associated Neurotransmitters” as needed.

The only major change that I would make with regards to formatting is to make a separate section for all of the disorders that you include within what I would consider the introduction. I think the article would flow better if that were its own sub-section.

This is a very minor edit but usually you only need one internal link for each item that you are linking within a single article. There are a couple that repeat twice or more including “globus pallidus” and “substantia nigra”

Content

I think that the article is very well researched and thorough. This may seem like a small aspect of your article but the breakdown of akinesia and bradykinesia based on the Latin root words. Additionally I think that the writing is very fluid and easily understood; you guys did a great job synthesizing your sources to come to more general conclusions about your topic. While there is detail where needed, the explanations are clear and concise, which I think is particularly good for an encyclopedia article.

It is also very clear that the article is well researched (and well cited) which makes your arguments compelling as they are supported in many cases by multiple sources. Great work.

One thing that I did notice and this is likely only a matter or preference but in your section “Connections to Other Medical Conditions” you do not use any full sentences and if you did I think it would just make it a more formal and professional article.

Overall I think the article is very well done! Keep up the great work guys. Chiara Lawrence (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Chiara Lawrence


 * Thanks for the positive feedback and your helpful suggestions! We moved the list of hypokinetic diseases into a table below the table of contents, and also fixed the repetitive internal links you mentioned. We added more information to the “Connections to Other Medical Conditions” section in a separate table. LavigneNSCI101 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)