Talk:Sympathoadrenal system

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): Jxl579, 9260konetzf, Chinski72, Connor.archer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Section on stress very misleading
There seems to be some confusion here about the distinction between the sympathoadrenal system and the HPA axis. The autonomic response to stress should be describe here, not the endocrine response. It seems they may be confused here and combined.

Also, some of the sources are very old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.134.187 (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review by 7078kassels
First of all, I'd like to say that this seems like a well written article with a lot of information. There are a few grammatical changes that I think could be made to make the article even better. In the first sentence, the phrase "outside stimulus" is used, but the plurality of this phrase is not correct. It either needs to say "outside stimuli" to make it plural, which is what I think you were going for, or there needs to be an "an" in front of it to make it singular. There are also multiple times throughout the article (I counted three) when you use the word "affects" and it should be "effects". Affects is used more as a verb, while effects is used as a noun, which is what the word is being used as in this article. In the section on chemical messengers, you use the word "innervates" when talking about the specific physiological effects on certain tissues within the body. However, in the context that it is used I was under the impression that you were referring to the effect that the chemical messengers have and it was my understanding that the chemical messengers were traveling through the bloodstream. Therefore, they would not be innervating anything, only nerves do that. I would recommend changing the word "innervates" here or trying to clear up the point that you're trying to get across here so that it is easier to understand. In the section on stress, I found the first sentence to be slightly confusing. I don't know if it is technically a run on sentence or not, but I thought that it contained a lot of information for one sentence. I would suggest breaking it up into two sentences by placing a period after "adrenal gland" and then starting the next sentence by saying, "This increase in activity occurs through the activation of these nerves by the..." or something like that. I was also confused when you talk about glucocorticoids in that section and say they "provide an inhibitory function for the protection". They provide an inhibitory function for the protection of what? I don't know if you meant to put "production" here since you are talking about production in the sentences preceding this, but I think that this sentence needs to be cleared up. When you are discussing hypertension, you say "high blood pressure associated with hypertension", but high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing so this seems a little redundant. Another grammatical thing I found was when you are discussing obesity and you say, "In some cases of obesity...". I think that you should take the "of" out and just say, "In some cases, obesity in individuals is due to the overproduction of corticoids, leading...". You would then have to change "lead" to "leading" to make this grammatically correct. At the end of the obesity section, you say that it causes someone to "sustain eating". I was slightly confused by what you meant by this statement and would recommend using a different word instead of "sustain" to better get your point across here. I thought that you used a decent amount of sources, but may want to cite them more often since some sections contained none, or very few, citations. I checked out your source #6 and I'm not sure that you need to include this source in your article. You only make one statement referencing this source in your article that I don't think necessarily contributes very much to the content that you're trying to get across in your article. This source is also a primary article that states in the paper that "this issue is not fully understood", indicating that this information may not be 100% accurate, or at least 100% confirmed yet. I thought that you included a lot of good information in your article and that you organized it very nicely. I would recommend at the beginning of the article when you reference acetylcholine to either link that word there to the acetylcholine page or state that it is a neurotransmitter. I know that you discuss this later on in the article, but some people may not know this right away, especially if they only read the first part of the article and not the whole thing. I would also suggest adding more information on how the chemical messengers are degraded if you can find anything about that. I know that you state that they are degraded quickly compared to hormones and I was just curious to know a little more about how that happens. Overall, I thought that you did a very nice job with this article. I thought that the tone of your writing was informative and that it flowed nicely. I also thought that your illustrations were a good contribution to the article and make things easier to understood. I think that if you make just a few small changes then you will have a very high quality article. 7078kassels (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your response. We’ve carefully read over your review and understand that many grammatical errors were made in the article. We will make sure to pay close attention to the details you have suggested so that other readers can better understand the topic. You suggested about having another section for chemical messengers, but we feel that it is unnecessary and off tangent from our main point. If readers would like to learn more, they can search up the term chemical messengers by itself. We still greatly appreciate your extensive input in helping our article, so thank you! Chinski72 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Johnmleclaire
You guys did a very nice job of putting this article together. The system is well laid out with diagrams that explain the relevant information well. I also read the article on the sympathetic nervous system and you guys did a good job of filling in the gaps left by that article. I feel like you guys should discuss the in-between hormones CRF and ACTH in the function section rather than including it in the pathologies section since it is very relevant to the actual mechanism of the system. The obesity section seems more relevant to the diseases section- you may want to move it there. Also, you discuss the use of adrenergic antagonists as a method to treat afflictions but don't mention it in either the pathologies or the diseases sections. This information seems like it would be more relevant to these sections. There is some redundancy between the introduction and the function sections, but this is probably necessary based off of your layout. You guys did a really good job at presenting a difficult topic in a way that is clear and concise. Johnmleclaire (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Mbozsik
I am a bit confused why there are two headings, one labeled "Pathologies" and one labeled "Diseases". It is my understanding that Pathologies and Diseases are the same thing.

The authors did a good job using very specific language when talking about this topic. I thought that it was very thorough and went into a good amount of detail when talking about the the interaction of the sympathetic nervous system and the adrenal gland. The language used in this article made it very easy to read and I did not have any issues understanding the message the authors were trying to convey.

The article could use several more pictures. Given that this topic is a physiological system, it would be helpful to see a diagram of how the topics relate to one another, specifically in the exercise section. Perhaps one does not exist, but a diagram from a textbook, I think, would aid in the overall understanding of the article and the effectiveness of the article in conveying the message.

Overall, the article is in good shape. it is appropriate in length, sites many sources, which appears to make the article look fact and research based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbozsik (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mbozsik (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall there has been a good deal of quality information contributed to this article. My main points for improvement come in the pages current organization. As a previous reviewer has mentioned, one may consider renaming the section on Pathologies to better reflect its contents. With this, I may recommend either grouping Exercise within the currently named Pathologies section or also finding an alternate title, as I feel it stands out a bit on its own. An expansion of current citations is also heavily needed. While some sections have been cited, there are many such as Function, Exercise, and Diseases which either contain portions lacking citations or the entire section lacks any citations. Lastly, as a grammar suggestion, in the opening sentence, I believe it should end "to outside stimuli" if that is your intention of the phrase. The content was well done from my perspective and I look forward to seeing the article's progress! Edavis95 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary review by Npsar20
I thought you guys did a good job with the article. The two pictures really help the reader visualize what is going on. Good job putting those in! The layout and structure is also good. I just had one concern with the disease and pathology sections. I don’t know why these are two different subheadings and maybe you could further explain in your talk page. I also think taking a look at the pictures in the second source could provide some very valuable information if you haven’t done so already. I thought you guys did a good job staying on track and focused on the main point, seeing it could’ve been easy to go off on tangents. I really enjoyed the stress and hypertension and obesity subsections. I thought you guys did a great job in these and they were explained really well. Learned a thing or two I didn't know before. An example is that I didn't know the overproduction of corticoids leads to obesity. Npsar20 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Npsar20

Secondary Review for Sympathoadrenal System by SinghM154
This article was overall done very well. What I really liked was the addition of the images that actually helped compliment the section and information that was provided. One thing that I see is the sections of Pathology and Diseases. Though they are technically two different words with slightly different meanings, I think it would be best to add the information of both sections into one, and this way, it will also make the section of Exercise not seem too out of place, as if it were random placed in between two sections. Other than that, the links to the other wiki pages for words that seem new are a great addition, along with good lengthy information and good organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinghM154 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary review
Well Written: There are a few suggestions that you all should look at such correct terminology and grammatical errors. Under “Chemical messenger”, the word “affects” should be “effects”. Make sure that all the words you’re using mean exactly what you would like them too. You all do a great job of explaining the pathways and function of the sympathoadrenal system but sometimes the long sentences and continuous terminology can make it a little difficult to follow. A suggestion for this would be to shorten your sentences and either “link” some of the terms or just give a short explanation. This will allow the reader to continue reading through your page without having to click on every term to get an understanding of what they mean. As some of the other reviewers have mentioned, I am a little confused by the titles “pathologies” and “diseases” since they both have almost the same meaning. Maybe come up with a better word for one of these titles. I added a link to the Pathology Wiki page so you could see the similarity in the definitions.

Verifiable with no original research: Also, just make sure to site all of your information. There are some sections such as Function, Chemical messenger, Exercise, Hypoglycemia, and Pheochromocytoma, which do not have citations. Make sure that your sources correlate with your information. Another primary reviewer looked at source number 6 and I looked over it as well, and came to the conclude that is a primary source and not a secondary source. I also looked at source number 2, which is a secondary source from PubMed that talks about the adrenal responses to stress. This source is helpful in acquiring information. I can see where you connected the information from the article to your page. You choose important facts. There are also some images on this source that could be used if they are explained. Since the image may not be permissible for use, I suggest making a similar one that could help explain the pathways.

Broad in coverage: Going back to what I said under “Well Written” I think you should use more explanations of terms then adding more links just to help it flow more. On a positive note, the pathways have been explained well as in they are very well organized and connected.

Illustrated: The images you used for the pheochromocytoma and sympathoadrenal system are great and descriptive. I suggest finding a couple more images to demonstrate the pathway in a different way under “function”. The first image is good but giving different images to help portray the same message would be helpful.

You all are definitely on the right path for this Wiki page. It has been well executed just consider my suggestions above. If you have any questions or would like any other suggestions please comment.

Egaietto13 (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey!! Thank you so much for your input. We understand and plan to look over the article further in regards to the grammatical errors. We didn’t mean to cause any confusion with the titles “diseases” and “pathologies.” To alleviate the confusion, we plan to keep diseases as its own section but also give stress and the hypertension/obesity their own sections. Thank you again for the tips!!! Chinski72 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
1.	Well Written: Over all I thought that the article itself was well written. The first paragraph was quite clear and I was able to fully understand the basic concepts about the sympathoadrenal system from it. The sections about function were a little heavy on scientific jargon and might be difficult for everyday people to understand it. 2.	Verifiable with no original research: This page did quite well with in text citations and making it clear which secondary sources they were using. The reference page was clear but some didn’t have links to external sources.

3.	Broad Coverage: Due to the nature of this topic and how it was outlined there seemed to be a lot of relevant information about this within the literature. I believe that the page did a good job at choosing main points to talk about and elaborate in depth with. One thing that might add to your page is the addition of links. This could be really helpful especially in the paragraphs that are extremely heavy in scientific wording.

4.	Neutral: The article wasn’t biased.

5.	Illustrations: The illustrations’ that are presented on the page are great. They really coincide with the information presented and are a useful illustrative tool. Although this is not necessary by any means you might want to consider adding one more image just so that everything that you cover in the article is also represented in visual forma as well. This could be quite beneficial to a reader that is struggling with the content of this page. Also, you should make sure there are references to your pictures as well.

I read over the secondary review article, The biochemical assessment of sympathoadrenal activity in man. The information that is presented in the article is the same as the information presented on the Wikipedia page. Additionally, this source checks out as a secondary source. Nickcallard (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Nicholas Callard

Hi there! Thank you so much for your input on our article. We read over your review, and we will make sure to go over our article carefully so that greater clarifications are made. We’ll try to reduce any scientific jargon or expand on these terms along with adding more images and links for our readers. Thanks again for your help!!! Chinski72 (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Clucy1994
This is a really well written article. The addition of all three images help give clarity to some of the points brought up in the article as well as help make the article more approachable to the general reader. You had a really nice introduction to the article that helped give an overview of the entire article, which would be great for anyone looking for just a little bit of information in a short amount of time. However, I agree with one of the other reviews in that it is a bit confusing that there is both a “Pathologies” and “Diseases” section. I would consider combining all subsections under a single header. Also, there are very little to no links to sources under the exercise, hypoglycemia, and phochromocytoma sections. I would suggest going back and adding in the links where appropriate so that later editors can know where all of the information you used came from.

CLucy1994 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by riesgraf.emily
This is a very scientific and complicated topic to describe to lay people so I compliment your work. The following are suggestions organized chronologically with respect to your article that I believe would help with information flow and readability.

I would suggest reading the article from beginning to end and then editing the introductory paragraph. This paragraph should introduce your topic and briefly mention what you are going to discuss in your article in the order they will be discussed. Currently the introduction is very specific, scientific, and disorganized leading readers confused on what information they will learn from the rest of the article.

I would suggest re-naming the “function” section as only the first sentence talks about the function of the sympathoadrenal system whereas the rest discusses the signaling pathway. This would be a great section to introduce the general transduction pathway you talk about in the “stress” section.

The subheadings under “Pathologies” could be changed to give more information. For example “Stress” could become “Increased Corticotropin-releasing hormone’s effect on signal transduction”. As mentioned above, “pathologies” and “diseases” should be combined. Under the same heading, each subheading should have a similar voice. For example if you go into scientific detail about the receptors, neurotransmitters, and overall pathway for one disease it would be nice to mention similar information for the others. The “hypoglycemia” paragraph goes into detail about the hypoglycemia itself whereas “stress”, “hypertension” and “obesity” focus on how those diseases are related to the sympathoadrenal system.

Overall this topic has sufficient information (although outdated). I like how the article is able to tie the very specific scientific details about signal transduction with diseases that the general population can relate to. To improve the article I would recommend working on organization by grouping like information together, making sure there is consistency with what types of information you are sharing for each “disease” and using topic and concluding sentences to help sum up each paragraph and help with fluidity.

Riesgraf.emily (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)riesgraf.emily

Primary Review natek629
This is a very well written Wiki article that contains few errors, great job guys. In the first paragraph I noticed two grammatical errors; the first is "stimulus" which should be changed to "stimuli" in the first sentence. The second error is in the second to last sentence; "such as phaeochromocytoma (a tumor on the adrenal medulla)" should contain commas on either side since you are giving a single example of the previously stated "more severe disorders". The functions and mechanisms are very well written and explained, but I did find that I had to read a couple of sentences over in order to understand what it was saying. I think that some of the sentences could be shortened and made more concise. Remember, you are only explaining your topic, you can always add links to other pages that explain certain terminology in detail. Another issue that I found is that the "exercises" and "diseases" sections do not have in text citations yet. The good news is that all of your resources check out except the one addressed by the other two primary reviewers. I think that the images and their descriptions are great though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natek629 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nate!! Your input is definitely appreciated. We are going to go back and find the grammatical errors that we initially missed. We’re also going to read through the article and plan to provide links in areas where the terminology is dense. We also plan to add more sources in the exercise and disease sections. Thank you again! Chinski72 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)