Talk:Neural masculinization

Comment 1
I think that you did a great job considering there was literally no article before you created it! In the introduction, I think the page could be improved if you specified which hormones affect behavior. I suppose that you referred to "androgen" earlier in the paragraph, but it might add clarity if you added something along the lines of "hormones, such as X and X, act on the ..." Later on, I think the article could be improved by using more action verbs. For example, in the SMB section, you could say "testosterone stops cell death..." instead of "testosterone is present to stop...". In the current wording, it is unclear exactly what role testosterone has in the process. It reads as though testosterone's presence does something as opposed to testosterone doing something. One last thing I would add is a link to the Wikipedia page for "Adrenogenital Syndrome" and "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia." Overall, great job! JoshBerlowitz (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Thank you so much for your comment! I took your advice by using more action verbs and by linking the page to "Adrenogenital Syndrome" and "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia". I did not though mention which hormones affect behavior because androgen is the main hormone involved in neural masculinization, which was already stated on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandraf51895 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2
Overall, this is a great page and by the looks of it you guys seem to have basically written everything on here and you guys did a great job of being concise with your definitions and explanations. However, in order to un-orphan the page, I would suggest trying to link it to other pages as much as possible throughout your explanations. For example, in the first paragraph you could include the link to androgens earlier instead of later in the paragraph. Also, I would consider combining sentences in the first paragraph to allow it to flow better. It seems very choppy to me like you're just throwing facts in my face. I also found that you link testosterone before its header but you don't do the same with estrogen so I would consider keeping it consistent but that's probably just my anal retentiveness. Again, I think you guys did a great job, although I'm sure it wasn't easy, on the page but I would just really urge considering the combination of sentences or even sections just to allow it to be more visually pleasing and be more concise for the audience.Mpicon1212 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for the organizational tips! I did link androgens earlier and also linked estrogen earlier in the page. The page is actually not an orphan, as it does contain links to other pages. I think the separation of topics allows the reader to navigate the page in an easier manner, so I did not combine sections. Cmeagher (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3
Great job with a discreet topic, but I have a few suggestions for improvement and general problems I think you should address. I would like to androgens in the first sentence, just to add clarity. Also, maybe specify "early stages in development" in the second paragraph of your introduction. Is there a critical period for sexual development (there definitely is), I would consider defining it. Also, I would explicitly define "masculinization." You do a good job defining NEURAL masculinization, but not masculinization. I think the SNB section is confusing, and a good way to remedy that would be to move the hormones sections (you might consider grouping testosterone and estrogen under one big section instead of two seperate ones) above the "Where Masculinization Occurs" section. At the end of you MePD section there is no period. Carefully review your additions to check for errors like this. In the "Where Masculinization Occurs," I think you need to explicitly state where it occurs. Is it just two regions of the CNS that you mention? Is it elsewhere in the brain or body? Furthermore, in your testosterone section, you need to link to the testosterone page again. I notice you define what an androgen is here, but I would define what an androgen is in the introductory paragraph as well to aid in understanding. Also, should there be a space in the word "alpha-fetaprotein" in the estrogen section? And in that section, I would add the concession "sometimes" to the entry somewhere. You do not explicitly say it only happens sometimes and that is confusing. The first two sentences of the diseases sections are sentence fragment. To fix that, just add the names of the diseases to the sentences. There is also no period at the end of the last sentence of the effects section. Overall, I think you need to talk about neural masculinizations effect on behavior more in depthly because that seems to be the reason why neural masculinization even matters. Maybe do this in your effects section, which is jumpy and confusing anyway. Look into revising the last section and making it more coherent. Good job! Corrineleblanc (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful tips! I put the definition of androgen in the introduction rather than in the testosterone section. I also moved the hormone sections above the "where masculinization occurs", I think that was a great organizational tip! I also added a period to the end of the MePD section and to the end of the effects section. There is no space in between alpha-fetoprotein, so I did not add a space there, but I did add the word "sometimes" to the estrogen sentence to add clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandraf51895 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 4
The beginning sentences in the introductory paragraph could be made more fluid so that the reader can understand how these different processes affect one another. Can you explain the connection between hormone development and masculinization in a more fluid manner? Also in this paragraph, it might help to make “intromission” a wiki link, which could specify which meaning of “intromission” you are referring to, and also give the reader a quick reference point. In general, it seems that important information is sometimes awkwardly placed within paragraphs. For example, in the section titled MePD, the final sentence, “The masculinization of neural structure is affected by estrogen and androgen receptors” seems like it would better serve as the introductory sentence to the paragraph. It might help to start with a general sentence explaining the overall mechanism of masculinization before getting to the main point, which in this case would be that steroids affect sexual differentiation, and how that plays into the role of testosterone and its masculinization of MePD. Again, the structure of the Testosterone section could be modified by switching the order of the first two sentences. Also in this section, I was confused about your reference to the low levels of testosterone in females; what does it mean that low levels of testosterone cause neurons to “develop along a female path”? Could you perhaps explain this more literally? What are the physiological or neurological processes that characterize the “female path”? Overall, great article—and a restructuring of the mentioned paragraphs, as well as the consolidation of certain choppy sentences would help refine it to its greater potential.Vrodriguez360 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Response: I did alter the beginning sentences to be a more cohesive, general definition of neural masculinization. There is actually no wiki link for intromission, so I was not able to link it. I also put the sentence about MePD at the beginning of the section because it did help with the clarity of that specific section. I also took your advice about switching the order of the sentences in the testosterone section. I explicated what I meant by “female path” by incorporating the behavior of lordosis in my explanation. Overall, this was a very helpful critique! Cmeagher (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research, dubious notability
The term is mentioned in one google scholar article, and is not mentioned at all in the sources used; This appears to be original research and an article which doesn't meet notability. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)