Talk:Laminoplasty

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): Nelu555, Britaanna, Nc801.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Article Review
This was very well written, I especially liked the contrast with a laminectomy. I see no significant grammatical errors, and it is easy to understand with the links you've added in to other wikipedia articles. You didn't go too in depth in areas you could have, especially in regards to disease, while also covering them in enough detail for it to make sense as to why they were added in the article. All the images were helpful to understanding the article. The only thing wrong that I can see is that your fourth citation doesn't seem to be a secondary article. Wheatona22 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your wonderful review, we really appreciate your comments and suggestions! In relation to our fourth citation, there seems to have been an error with the hyperlink on the article reference section that takes you to the correct secondary article. We have made changes to the reference so it links up to the correct article. Nc801 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review 2
Your page is very well organized, I liked that you started with a little background before going into any specific details. But I feel as though you could combine the purpose of the procedure into the beginning paragraph on the page because I feel like that is more important. Also all your information seems relevant to the topic which is great. However while reading it there were some topics that I wished I could click on to read more about so I would use links for as much as possible. All of your information seems credible with the provided references although citation four doesn't seem to be a secondary article so just double check that with each other. 0346mannv (talk) 5:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your helpful comments and response! Your advice and input is greatly appreciated! We added part of the purpose of the procedure into the beginning paragraph of the page as you suggested. This was a great suggestion and definitely adds to the intro so that anyone that knows nothing about laminoplasty has a little more insight on the overall procedure and why it is typically conducted. We have realized that the more links we have, the better so we added more links to provide more information on the topics we think you'd like to read more about! In regards to the fourth citation, there must have been an error on our part when adding it in so we have made changes to correct the link and send you to the correct secondary article. Thank you again for your constructive feedback! Nc801 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Try to include more links, for instance as a reader I would like to know more of spinal stenosis and ossified posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). I really liked the brief explanation of the procedure in the lead paragraph. I belief that the History section is out of place, maybe include it in the end of your page, this way the reader has more information of the spine anatomy and laminoplasty. Overall, the wiki page is well written and I really like the images.MMstudentMU (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I liked the article but make sure to hyperlink segmental instability and perineural adhesions because some people might not know what that is. Also get rid of the first sentence of the Complications section, its not really needed. Otherwise great job!Willc22 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
A lot of important detail was included in this article in order to better understand this topic. There were some parts of information given that lacked any citations, specifically the lead and purpose topics. I also noticed a few other terms used that could have been linked to their topic articles. For the subtopic of "Success Rates", it might be more helpful to combine it with the subtopic of "Complications". The secondary articles used for references do enhance and support each subtopic, especially the third reference about operative techniques used in orthopedics. The only problem with the chosen references that I noticed, was that the fourth one did not seem like a secondary review. Overall, this article is well written and had a good presentation of the information on the topic. Wagnerb95 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your review. For the leading information, a previous wikipedia user started this page with that information, and they did not include a reference on the wikipedia page. For the purpose section, we forgot to add an internal citation, so thanks for catching that. Also, we agree that the success rates seems very similar to the complications, so we added that information in with complications. For the citations, we fixed citation four. The citation generated a weird link that should not have been added.--Nelu555 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall this article is well written and informative, especially the "Method" section and the included images. If possible, more links would be helpful to the reader. The overview of the procedure in the beginning is a good touch, but it might be better in its own section. Perhaps using the overview at the beginning to give more of a general introduction to the ideas surrounding the topic would be better. 5641heatwoe (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Very good article. It was very detailed and after I was done reading about it, I felt like I had a pretty good idea about what laminoplasty is and why it is used. There is just one suggestion I have though. I would include more links in your article, especially in the "Method" section. Things like "Jackson table", "Mayfield tong", and"lateral readiograph". I could see how someone else or myself could be interested in learning about what those things are. Also in the seventh sentence in the anatomy section, replace the word "our" with "the". Other than that, good job. Bkeefer97 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is very informative. You guys have a good start to your lead section, by initially talking about the process of the surgical procedure. I think that this section can be further developed by the addition of a new paragraph to give more context. In the extra paragraph, you could talk about the population affected by spinal problems, or just briefly talk about your sections (i.e there are different techniques of laminoplasty). You also may want to think about including the "laminoplasty purpose" and "success rates" in the lead. These sections are great for establishing general context of the procedure. Other than that, I thought the article was well developed. You guys did a good job on describing the different techniques and including figures to support this.JLPhys2018 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I found this article to be very clear and informative. The links in the article were very helpful in supporting what you were explaining. The x-ray image was also very helpful and extremely clarifying of the procedure. I would suggest that the section on spine anatomy is helpful but not entirely necessary, but changing that would depend on the extent of the wiki page about the spine and its anatomy.Shelly870 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Great job on your article so far. There is plenty of information about this surgery covering everything from the procedure to potential side effects and recovery which is wonderful. My greatest critique is to make the writing flow better. The information is there, now it is more about having every sentence flow nicely with adjacent sentences. Other small changes you can make:

-You describe different sections (C2, C3, etc), which were introduced suddenly. I know you already provided pictures, but maybe some pictures that depict where these sections are would be helpful to the viewer. Very small change, but I believe it can make a difference.

-While you already linked a lot of terms, there are still others that have not been linked and could be helpful to the viewer (example: tcMEP)

-I’m confused by the quotation marks around “swinging” in your introduction. Is swinging just another term used for the action that is being conducted? The necessity for the quotations is just a bit unclear.

You have a good article! Good luck editing!MTZ15 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)MTZ15

Reply
Thanks for the response. For the swinging comment. The previous author of this page as written that, and we decided to keep it because it shows that when the lamina is cut on one side, there is a slight swinging motion of the bone. This is why it was in quotations due to the swinging motion being small. --Nelu555 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)