Talk:Terminal lucidity

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group [X] proposed edits
Zhaoa (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The article cites," Paradoxical lucidity: A potential paradigm shift for the neurobiology and treatment of severe dementias" as a source which is a therotical article. This may not be the most reliable or informative source as it does not cite experiments but rather potential outcome and effects. Axiao99 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * change patients to people Axiao99 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The article uses medical jargon for example hydrocephalus which should be edited. AnneZakh (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences under the Causes header are not cited. If we can find one, we should provide a source/reference for this statement Zhaoa (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete inappropriate, unreliable, or outdated referencces. Iiiiris295 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * reference 1 AnneZakh (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review from Pubarche Group
Part 1: Question 1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework"?
 * The group's edits includes many references and citations which makes the article credible to read, knowing they sought out information to supplement their article with. I would suggest that the group breaks up the "Possible mechanisms" section into subheadings to organize the ideas. Lghad (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has a lead section that is easy to understand which is followed by a nicely structured article. The content written is neutral and uses reliable resources. The section on possible mechanisms also includes content that can fit under history. Maybe separate out sections by time only?
 * Yes, the group has made great improvements to the article, especially going into more detail about mechanisms of terminal lucidity and explaining what it is. The article even makes connections to medical and psychological conditions that consist of great explanations and differences between each one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineOGonzales (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead section provides a good introduction to the topic, as well as a distinction between similar terms ("terminal lucidity" vs paradoxical lucidity"). The rest of the article also flows well, is organized under clear headers, and adds a substantial amount of information relating to the topic.Mayybellee (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * Yes. It is clear that the article states the essential understanding of terminal lucidity from many added sources which was the goal. Also, medical jargon is linked or explained, improving the article's quality.Zoegeng yourong0111 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the group has swapped out medical jargon for lay-language terms, making it easier for readers to understand. They have also provided more references to make the sentences in their article more reliable. Lghad (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the group achieved its goals for improvement by further expanding on the possible mechanisms section and linking appropriate medical conditions where applicable. This made the article much easy to follow along, especially in the explanations of the significance of the case reports discussed. CatherineOGonzales (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, all sources appear reliable and all jargon is either changed to appropriate lay language or explained.Mayybellee (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Part 2: Question 1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)
 * The article has a neutral point of view, the writers are not attempting to persuade the readers. The article lists documented incidents of terminal lucidity and its findings by the scientist which is very interesting to read and shows a clear reflection of what is known on this topic. Zoegeng yourong0111 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Question 2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain)
 * The points cited are secondary sources. I went through each reference (either the article or DOI link) and all were freely available. CatherineOGonzales (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Question 3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? (explain)
 * Yes, all work has been organized neatly into appropriate headers and subheaders, and all citations are placed appropriately at the end of sentences after the punctuation marks. There is one citation where the date needs some reformatting - spelling out the month and year in the Source Date usually works for me! ex. "January 2023" (it's for reference #15 Ijaopo, Ezekiel Oluwasayo; Zaw, Khin Maung; Ijaopo, Ruth Oluwasolape; Khawand-Azoulai, Mariana (2023-01). "A Review of Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Imminent End-of-Life in Individuals With Advanced Illness") Mayybellee (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your observation! It is fixed now. AnneZakh (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Question 4. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)
 * A lot of names and their work were used to support the mechanisms portion of the article, but we don't know where the participants came from, so would it be best if we knew the backgrounds of the participants to validate that the studies included people of different cultural backgrounds, and not just focused on one ethnic/racial group? Let me know what you guys think, I might've also missed this information! Lghad (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for your comment and observation. Unfortunately, the researchers did not mention any information about the participants' race/ethnicity. Some added information about underlying conditions they might have but not cultural backgrounds. AnneZakh (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group A review
Reviewed references 1-7 AnneZakh (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references 8-15Iiiiris295 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references 16-23 Zhaoa (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed references 24-32 Axiao99 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)