Talk:Tactile discrimination

Untitled
In the process of editing this page. Should be up in a couple of weeksThayerM12 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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): ThayerM12, JCW23528, D. Royevich, KashTalwar415. Peer reviewers: NirmPatel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Author Goal
Our goal in editing this article was to cover the many subjects that tactile discrimination touches on while also trying to show the basic mechanisms and pathways that make it possible. There is a lot of information on these topics and a lot of them have their own pages so we did not want to overpower the main topic with any of the subsections.ThayerM12 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
Review based on 6 Good Article Criteria provided by Wikipedia:

1. Well written:

- Within the second paragraph of the Somatosensory System, "there are also.." is a phrase repeated twice in a row - making it sound a little bit choppy. Perhaps rewording one of the sentences would help it sound less choppy. I also think it would help to put the example of slow adapting receptors after the description, as well as the rapid adapting receptors. That way your paragraph stays more organized instead of jumping back and forth.

-Another small personal comment I have is that I think the beginning of your paragraphs should begin with full sentences instead of just stating "includes multiple types of sensations from the body". I understand the connection, but I personally think beginning with full sentences would bring the article together a bit more. -The Discriminative Touch System paragraph is slightly hard to understand due to the multiple definitions being thrown into the small paragraph. I think some reorganizing or rewording would make this paragraph easier to understand.

-Can you expand on the other types of receptors, beyond the peripheral mechanoreceptors?

-The Stereognosis paragraph says "and accurate reading" instead of "an"

-For the Two-point discrimination paragraph, I think it would be beneficial to put the definition of what a two-point threshold is in the beginning of the paragraph instead of towards the end

-The Blindness paragraph mentions "the blind are able to use their sense of touch to feel the roughness" twice, maybe tie the two together to mention the 2PD?

2. Verifiable with no original research - Looks good

3. Broad in it's coverage - Yes!

4. Neutral - Yes!

5. Stable - Yes!

6. Illustrated - Maybe add a few more images in the first few paragraphs?

Review of Source 17: "Is Tactile Acuity Altered in People With Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis"'''

-The source is a good one. Perhaps it would have benefitted you to add more to your article about other chronic pain conditions and how tactile sense is affected from those as well - as this article has information on multiple conditions. Laurennmichelle7 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
This review was very helpful in checking the overall style and grammar of our article. All of the comments on grammar and correcting fragmented sentences have been addressed. The chronic pain section has been expanded based on this review. The goal was to not have too much information on a topic as to overpower the page, but I think a nice balance has been found.ThayerM12 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

secondary review
The first thing I noticed when opening the article was the lack of illustrations and how short the lead was. It gave it a very "unfinished" look. I think improving the lead, and summarizing what the rest of the article will go over in more detail would make the lead a lot better. overall, I think it was well written, except for a couple grammatical errors and formatting mistakes that I noticed in the somatosensory system section. But a very interesting topic, well done! AS2196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
We added several new pictures to the article as well as expanding on the opening paragraph. The introduction now outlines the page more thoroughly. The grammatical errors have been fixed.ThayerM12 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
This page is useful to get the information across on tactile discrimination. There are some errors that stand out in red, meaning they are not formatted properly, such as the link to Tactile Gnosis as well as the date in source 14. I feel like the article could be improved to provide more of a flow for the reader looking at this page because some parts seem fragmented. For example, in the somatosensory system paragraphs some of the sentences don’t seem complete or are missing minor grammar applications that give a confusing output of those sentences. I looked over source 11 and it seems to be an original experimental research article rather than a review article. Maybe finding a review article that references this research article could help in maintaining the information gathered to explain that portion of the two-point discrimination paragraph. There are a lot of subcategories included that aid in explaining tactile discrimination such as the different pathways involved and the applications associated with it that help give this page a broad coverage and meet the goals of the authors. The information is presented in a neutral tone to convey the topic in an informative manner. There are some useful illustrations used where I was able to verify the robotic prosthetic hand illustration used from wikimedia commons in the Robotic Tactile Discrimination paragraph. I think it might be useful to add more illustrations to even out the structure of the page such as in one of the pathway sections or an example of stereognosis. Overall, the page provided an interesting topic to read. (AKMade (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

Response
This review was very helpful, and we were able to review the sources you mentioned and fixed those problems. In regard to source 14, the information that correlated with that source turned out to not be very helpful in regard to the information for the blindness section. Therefore, we went ahead and removed that source along with the information within our article. In doing so, it helped the blindness section flow better. In regard to the grammatical errors, they were fixed along with the flow of the overall article. Essentially, this review was very helpful and your feedback is greatly appreciated. JCW23528 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of Page
Overall, good job! I would suggest that you look over the "somatosensory system" section in "Pathways" and clean up the use of first and second person pronouns. The use of third person pronouns would make the article have more consistent flow and I think it would make the section more coherent in general.

Maribio97 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your feedback, the somatosensory system section was cleaned up and it now flows better. Thank you for pointing that out! JCW23528 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hi! Really good article with lots of cool info. Just a few comments:

-I’m not sure the section on frequency discrimination is really necessary. Since the article is specifically about tactile discrimination this seems out of place

-Under the “Pathways” section, there are no citations or links. I think these should be included to show where your info came from and to help connect readers to other pages related to the topic

-Under the “Special Types” section, a lot of the words are bold. I don’t know the exact wikipedia guidelines on bold words, but it seems a little distracting to me to have so many.

Overall great work! I hope these comments help!

Briancmart2 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Hi Brian, thanks for your review. This was the section written by me so I truly appreciate you telling me points I need to fix. I believe I have fixed everything that you brought my attention to. I will also keep this in mind for any potential additions I do make. Thanks again.

KashTalwar415 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Source
Good article with great examples that helped understanding the topics; the robot tactile discrimination was cool to learn about. Add citations to the pathways section and maybe some more illustrations Thepaopao (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC).

Response
Thanks for your thoughts. We also found the robotic section interesting and hopefully when more research is available and technology advances this section will grow. We have added a couple new illustrations and all of the sources are now in the pathways section.

Primary Review
1.	Well written: The article is mostly well written. There are just a few areas that I think could use some improvement. Specifically, the lead is a little short. It briefly explains what tactile discrimination is and its importance. Maybe the importance of tactile discrimination could be elaborated on, as well as the history of it and how it was discovered/experiment on? In the “Pathway” section of the article there a few typos. I would also recommend splitting the part of the paragraph on somatosensory on the 3 areas and the 3 neurons into a list with what each area and neuron mean/correspond to. I think it would be easier to read that way. For the paragraph on the types of receptors, I would also recommend bolding the name of the receptors to make it more obvious of their distinction, or maybe number them in a list? Also, when describing the abilities that are associated with tactile discrimination, I would recommend explaining that there are tests that are done to evaluate these abilities, and then describe what the tests are. Otherwise it’s kind of confusing to read that section. I would also recommend elaborating on the importance of these abilities and the tests done to evaluate them.

2.	Verifiable: Yes, it all looks legitimate

3.	Broad in Coverage: Yes, there is a broad range of topics discussed all in regard to tactile discrimination

4.	Neutral: Yes

5.	Illustrated: I would add a photo to the topic section of the page. The two photos at the end of the article are placed nicely, but it makes the top look empty.

Source #10: it appears to be a primary article where the researchers wanted to carry out these experiments in order to prove or disprove previous experiments that have been done on two-point discrimination. However, the reference is correctly cited in the article. Anything in the article that talks about two-point discrimination has this reference cited. Mig0423 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Hi, thank you for your review. The points you made were very helpful and definitely helped our group make this article better. I personally have fixed my pathways section by adding a couple images as well as citing the sources within the section. Completely slipped my mind initially. Also, I described more about the types of receptors there are. We also described much more about the tests of 2 point discrimination as we completely understood what you were trying to say. Thanks again for you input and hopefully everything you recommended to us was improved. KashTalwar415 (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall a really great article with a good amount of interesting information. The article was easy to read but I would clean up the short, choppy sentences to make the wording flow a little better. I would also avoid starting multiple sentences in the same paragraph with the same wording such are "There are also". I was also a little confused by the "special types" section. Is this a description of subtypes of tactile discrimination or are they different tests that can be done? I'd clarify a little bit. Bmehall1 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your feedback. We've been reviewing the whole article to try to make it flow better but our main priority is to fix grammar/punctuation mistakes and of course being factually accurate while getting the point across. You are right that our wording for the "special types" section might be confusing. Basically when we say "special types" we mean types of tactile discrimination and same goes for "tests". We've subsequently gone back and changed up the wording including the title to make it more clear. D. Royevich (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)R. Royevich

Secondary Review
This is a well researched and formatted article. The biggest area for improvement is in the pathways section. Be sure that you are always using full sentences and not just listing things in an outline format. Also be sure to double check the grammar here as there were a couple instances of inappropriate punctuation. Also were did this information come from? There are no references in this entire section of the document. Overall the tone of the article was great and it is written in an easily comprehensible manner. Rsscience (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your feedback. We've been rereading the entire article to improve punctuation and grammar. We do have sources for the pathways section, they just hadn't been put up when the article was first written. We've subsequently added them. D. Royevich (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)D. Royevich

Secondary Review
Hey everyone, good work here. Just a few thoughts here - great overall layout and organization. There are a few areas that need some grammatical touch-ups so make sure you read over everything. For the footnotes within the section, make sure you follow proper wiki format with the reference cited after the period of a sentence with no spaces. The section "Types of Receptors" should be rewritten to flow better. "ect" is superfluous. Other than that, there are certain nouns that are capitalized, while they should not be. "Brain" can be lowercased. Other than these minor corrections to be made, the article looks good. MitchellMoylan (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Hi, thank you for your revisions and recommendations. It truly means a lot that you took time to read the article and assessed how it could become better. We understood that the flow wasn't as good as we initially suspected it was so we tried to fix that. We fixed the sources issue as well. Thanks Mitchell. KashTalwar415 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall this page looks well organized, is broad in coverage and very neutral. A few things that I would suggest are to incorporate more illustrations especially for the specific types of tactile discrimination and the pathways. This will help any reader to know exactly what is being talked about. I also noticed that in the Pathways section none of the sources are referenced, so inserting the cited sources correctly will help verify what is being said. In addition, the first paragraph seems a bit short and increasing the description of tactile discrimination and including its relatedness to applications would help. On a final note, there are some very minor grammar issues and the use of quotations was used multiple times where it was unnecessary and sections headers use sentence capitalization. Collinryan (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your feedback provided, it was very helpful. In regard to illustrations, more have been added as well as the sources within the pathways section. Also, our introduction was short as first but after reviewing it, more information was able to be added. Lastly, the grammar issues were addressed, and our article should be able to flow better now. Once again, thank you for your feedback! JCW23528 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well Written: The article was written pretty well overall but there were some obvious mistakes that needed to be fixed. A lot of them can and most likely will be fixed with proofreading. I think the Lead section could be elaborated on more; it seems too short and I feel that leaves out some key information that a reader would need from a Lead. Make sure the hyperlinks that are set up actually lead somewhere (Tactile Gnosis). Overall organization of the article was good and was really easy to follow and citations seemed to be fine. Remember to not use to much jargon; has to be simple enough that my grandma can read it! To make things simpler for the reader, try adding a topic sentence under each section that introduces the subsections.

2. Verifiable: There didn't seem to be any issues here.

3. Broad in Coverage: The article focused on many sections that are related to tactile discrimination and did not stray from the topic while 4. Neutral: The article was unbiased

5. Illustrated: The end had nice pictures correlating to the reading, but the beginning lacked illustrations making it look pretty bland. Need more illustrations, if it is a couple.

To me source 9 looks like a study/experiment (primary source). The information used from the article was properly cited and did reflect the information from the source. The problem with this source is that I think it is a primary source. Try to find if this source was ever cited by other sources and work from there. NirmPatel (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your feedback. You were right about the intro paragraph being too short so we've expanded it and made it more informative so that the reader gets a general idea about our topic. "tactile gnosis" isn't supposed to be a hyperlink, it's just another name for "Stereognosis" which has a functioning hyperlink last time we checked. We do try to avoid making the article too complicated and having too much jargon but bear in mind that given the subject matter that can be a little difficult. One thing we've done to try to alleviate that is to add more links to the pages of some of the more complicated words used. You were right about there not being enough pictures so we've added some more. You were also correct about #9 being a primary source so we've found another source that's secondary to replace it. D. Royevich (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)R. Royevich