Talk:Polymicrogyria

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): KpocMU, Nettap01, Nickcallard, Natek629.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review
This article was very well written in the fact that it would make sense for the intended audience. It seemed to include all necessary information without leaving any areas of further questioning. It had one nice image, but if possible could benefit by including more. In the syndromes section some of the wording was unclear, possibly just due to a typo, so that should be reworded. In that section it might also be helpful to link some of the anatomy words to existing pages in case a reader is interested in more information. It seemed like there was no original research, but the citations were not as clear as they could have been, which would help make it obvious if there was or not. I reviewed the second resource; however, it did not allow me to view the full article without paying for it. From just the abstract portion that I was able to read it did not appear to be a secondary source either because it was information about a specific case of siblings. This did not appear to be a source that should be used. If it was not used, the citations should be more clear to indicate that. Overall, just some minor editing and fixing the citations should help. KCole0034 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Based on the feedback another picture was included to help understand the GPR56 gene since it plays one of the suspected majors roles in developing polymicrogyria. Some sentences were touched up in the syndrome section after rereading and making changes where it seemed beneficial as well as more links being added to help direct to pages for better basic understanding leading towards this topic. The reference section was put into correct format for proper sighting and verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KpocMU (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
I am doing a primary review of the Wikipedia article “Polymicrogyria” as a class assignment for University schooling. I have read through the content of the free encyclopedia page and have commented on the article by using the “good article” guidelines given to all Wikipedia editors. When reading through this article I came across wording that is beyond the average readers knowledge. I believe defining some of the difficult words or phrases will help the reader understand this malformation and the information behind it. The introduction has a few points that could be divided out and as paragraphs. The introduction should capture the reader and be appeasing to the eye with simple words. This will draw the reader in to want to read more about the article after seeing what it has to offer. In the content section the word “edit” next to content numbers 1-3 and the words are an open portal to anyone looking at the page to edit as a user who has written this page. The references are not complete throughout the article. Information should be cited throughout the page. In the writing of the article I see a little too much of statements in regard to how much information there was for each section. This should be said and explained on your talk page and only the true information that is available and correct should be in the content of the page. There are a few grammar errors as well. Overall, this is a strong article. The phrasing and grammar needs cleaned up but it was very easy to follow and understand where the writers were going with the topic and what they were trying to convey. They used very reliable resources, I checked the first source the student editors produced and was directed to NCBI where I was able to analyze the sources. The source matched up but it looked to be a study with original data so this would be a primary source to my knowledge. There does not look to be any plagiarism. The in-line citations are not completed and these are very important to verify information. It made it difficult to check sources and information. The writing sometimes felt like it was the authors’ examples of outcomes of the malformations effects in a few ways. Maybe having in-line citations would help to prove that it is from a source. This is a very stable article. I checked the history and there have only been edits from the students as small and minor changes listed. I think the picture helps to show the audience the visual aspect of this unfortunate malformation and gives a viewpoint that opens another aspect of what is going on. RReilles24 (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Based on the feedback, more links to words throughout the article have been added to allow readers to understand the article as needed based on their extent of knowledge. Some sentences were revised grammatically for a clearer grasp and on the concept as well as touching up the layout, such as in the introduction. The reference section was put into correct format. All sources used by this group were under the review free full text section for polymicrogyria on NCBI website under the Pubmed category so we are not sure which link you were comparing to a primary source based on your knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KpocMU (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I really like how this article was laid out and I thought there was substantial material in each section. However, I think that more words throughout the article should be highlighted so people can understand the full extent of the article even more. Also the reference numbers in the history section are not done properly and some of the sections overall do not seem to be cited at all. Overall I thought this was a well written article. Sydneym21 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The intro is very well done, and lays out the plan for the rest of article properly, and gives some concise background on polymicrogyria. The history section is well written, but just make sure the footnotes are working properly in this section, and maybe add a few hyperlinks in this section. The syndromes section is has many good points, and gives a good general view on all the different types of polymicrogyria syndromes. Maybe have a few hyperlinks in this section would help along with some citations within the paragraph. The clinical presentation was a very nice touch in the article, which helps again consolidate the different disorders. The diagnosis section gives a very good overview of the different technology/examination techniques used to diagnosis polymicrogyria. Some things that can be worked on throughout the article: looking over grammar, check if internal citations work. Other than those things the article is well done, and written properly and is structured in a proper format. Sand774823 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall the article is strong, but could use further development especially in terms of citations and organization. It might be beneficial to present the "Etiology" immediately after the "History" section, since this is very relevant to the rest of the article and how the reader interprets the information presented in "Syndromes" and "Pathology". Further, you mention that there is no corrective treatment available, but there are medications to assist in maintaining daily lifestyle/function. I believe that merits some discussion later on in the article. However brief you want it to be and whether the new information stands by itself or is included in another section is your call.

In terms of citations, there are many sections where no article is cited; I see they're all in the references section, but I know Wikipedia editors want every few sentences (if not more frequent) to be cited. Also, in the History section, the citation attempts were made but the mark-up language didn't accept their insertion. To conclude, the detail presented was very strong and appropriate to most readers. Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Phrasing is a bit awkward throughout. Proof-read and try to rephrase some of the sentences to be more clear. Some of the words in the “history” section are followed by “1”, not really sure what that’s about. You need in-text citations. The symptoms could be explained more. What is spastic hemiparesis or quadriparesis? The first paragraph in “pathology” would be great in the introduction. Diagnosis goes a little too in depth at times. Would a layman know or understand what “Resonance Imaging (MRI) with a T1 weighted inversion recovery” is? Good start! The information is there, it just needs some polishing and it’ll be great! Chkollath (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well Written: I thought was written pretty well with the strongest section being the introduction. Here I felt that I felt that someone who was unfamiliar with science could get a good understanding of the articles purpose. Other sections tended to be too wordy and I had to read it over a few times to understand. I felt that breaking up section could help make the purpose more clear and appear less jumped around. An example could be to break pathology up and have the GPR56 be its own section.

2. Verifiable with no original research: There was much room for improvement in this section. One I do not believe that the authors correctly did the in text citations and also needed a lot more. Some sections such as pathology and clinical presentation did not have any in text citations. Without them as a reader I can not be sure if things were plagiarized. I was also a little confused on the reference page because some are numbered and some are not. I also felt there was room to improved the use of links. For example some words such as developmental and brain didn't need the links, but words such as quadriparesis do. I verified this articles second source and it is in fact a review article and it appears to be cited correctly.

3. Broad coverage: This was well done. I felt that they covered the main ideas and gave relevant history to how and why polymicrogyria is important.

4. Neutral: The article does not appear to be biased.

5: Illustrations: There is an illustration which is very useful adding one or two more could be beneficial.

Overall I got a good understanding of the purpose and the use of the image helped my understanding. Citations could be improved to ensure validity and the use of links in more appropriate places. I thought the authors did a good job so far! Emmasarah95 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Based on the feedback provided, we analyzed the information on the GPR53 gene in pathology, which already has its own paragraph, but was looked over to make sure it flowed with the main focus being on that gene to distinguish it better. The reference section was updated to proper format to avoid question of plagiarism and give better verification. All the sections were looked over and reworded, or links added to avoid being too wordy or confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KpocMU (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article is very well written - however, I felt that this would be difficult to read for someone who does not have any prior knowledge. Some of the terms would be difficult to understand and so I suggest maybe adding more links so that other can reference them for more details.

I noticed there weren't many in-text citations - which made it difficult to know which reference was used for each section.

Overall, well done. My only suggestion would be to change the wording a bit or paraphrase a little differently. Ksannch (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Ksannch

Primary Review
Well Written: Overall this article was well written. However, the first sentence is a bit hard and challenging to understand without the usage of hyperlinks or an explanation of what exactly "atypical cortical lamination" is and how it plays a role. The rest of the article is understandable but I feel that the usage of hyperlinks would truly be beneficial.

Verification w/ No Original Research: As stated by previous reviews the main part to point out is the usage of citations. You have some sections cited but not all others so that's something easy to fix in order to prevent the risk of plagiarism.

Broad In Coverage: This article completes its goal by depicting the material necessary in order for a reader to get a better understanding of Polymicrogyria. Once the hyperlinks or meanings of words is put into place the article will be an easy read for those without a science/medical background. But all in all this article covered the necessary material to achieve an understanding the importance of this article.

Neutral: This article was neutral in that biases was not evident in the writing of the authors.

Illustrated: The addition of more pictures would make this page a bit more appealing as well as aid in help visualize the certain concepts covered.

Overall this article was written and provided the necessary information for the reader to understand. As previously stated, the use of hyperlinks and citations can be implemented for clarity and verification of sources. I read the article entitled, "Polymicrogyria Overviews" and was able to understand where the authors derived their information. They used the proper terms and concepts but didn't cite it correctly. However, once citations are put into place this article will solidified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSCHMIDT1127 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC) SSCHMIDT1127 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review CameronLangeMU (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC) ===

To begin, right off the bat, the picture was a great addition to the article. Personally, pictures help me, as a reader understand the topic and put a mental picture in my mind of the text. This article was very informative, especially when it came to the pathology behind Polymicrogyria. One recommendation would to be to explain the topics under the clinical presentation, as well talk about the diagnosis of the diseases itself. In addition, is there more information about the history of the disorder? I read that it was hard to find information about the topic and not much was known until modern technology, but maybe there is an article out there that explains how modern technology has helped diagnosed this disorder. Hyperlinks about the g-proteins that are within your topic would help the readers understand as well. Overall, it was written and with additional information added, and additional sources, it will be a near perfect article.

Reply
Based on the following critique changes were made to the page such as with the opening paragraph, specifically the first sentence, was revised to a more basic understanding leading into polymicrogyria. References were fixed so there is no question in plagiarism and to solidified the article. Another picture was added, to the GPR53 gene section to help give more information and appeal visually to readers that may benefit from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KpocMU (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review from Xiaoyi Hou
Overall, the article is very informative and thorough. A very relevant image has been used to illustrate the topic. Occasionally, some contents seem not belong to the section. For example, in the “History” section, the authors mention the gene that links to polymicrogyria, which to me belong to pathology. The first paragraph of “Pathology” explains the etymology of polymicrogyria, which I think, is better belong to the lead section or “History”. While reading, it seems to me that the “Syndromes” and “Clinical presentation” sections are kind of similar, so perhaps you could combine them together. Besides contents, the grammar and wording should be checked again to make the article more readable. Some of the terms may be difficult for the general audience to understand, such as G protein-coupled receptor (even though we know it). Linking those terms to existing Wikipedia page or outside sources would be helpful. Also, the in-text citations and the reference list should be improved. The article is in a good shape, but some revisions can make it even better.

Xiaoyi1991 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)