![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
In recent years i have compiled a some online PubMed research paper collections which may be of some value to editors wishing to expand this article.
dolfrog ( talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am planning to expand this article as a project for my introductory neuroscience class. Ana Minchew ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Our names are Charlotte Wright and Marisa Dreher. We are currently majoring in Neuroscience at Middlebury College. We will be expanding this article over the next few weeks as part of our introductory neuroscience class. Charlotte Wright ( talk) Marisa Dreher ( talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013
I have reorganized the article to conform with WP:MEDMOS, cleaned up section headings per WP:MSH, removed some of the editorializing, and cleaned up the citations to conform with the style originally used (See WP:CITEVAR). I have not checked for copyvio, plagiarism, or too close paraphrasing. This is the version after my initial cleanup, for the commentary below.
Before going on to list the problems, I'll note that the sourcing is good; secondary reviews are mostly used (but a few primary sources should be replaced).
These sorts of issues are throughout the article; it is not helpful for poorly written text to be plopped into an article on a leading website. Please clean up.Individuals have normal quantity of well-formed letters. However they lack of meaningful words.( Wernicke's aphasia is an example of fluent aphasia)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Thank you for your comments as they will make our article stronger. CWright93 ( talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Thank you for your input regarding Wright and Dreher's submissions. It seems as though you are quite well versed in Wikipedia language and we are grateful for your input. As the students state, they are working on this for a class project and will certainly take all comments into account. We hope that you will make comments and allow them to make corrections. It will be a great experience for them. Also, it seems that multiple users are working on this page simultaneously: Ana Minchew. We are not related to Ana in anyway, but hope that we can all work together cooperatively to create the best page possible for this topic. We thank you for your patience and for your advice. Kim Cronise —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is Ana Minchew. All of my work is still in my Sandbox (it's still a very rough draft, and I didn't want to upload it until I'd had a chance to clean it up), so if you guys don't mind, we can share the responsibility of writing the article. It shouldn't be too confusing, since Wikipedia keeps a record of who wrote what. Ana Minchew ( talk) User:Ana Minchew/sandbox 02:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ana, Thank you for your willingness to collaborate on this article. Marisa and I really look forward to working with you to make this article stronger. CWright93 ( talk) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues which require coordination between the various related Wikipedia articles concerning Aphasia, Agnosia, Alexia, and Agraphia concerning a wide range of inter-related issues. These issues need to be addressed by all editors, including student editors. These issues all part of continuing research to increase our understanding of human communication how we learn to communicate, and how things can go wrong. It would be a good idea of the students who are attempting to edit these related articles could actually communicate with each other, and other Wikipedia editors who have an interest in and contribute to these articles in order to provide some continuity. Wikipedia is about collaboration, and consensus, and working together. dolfrog ( talk) 13:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Dolfrog: Thank you for your constructive comments on how to further improve this article, as well as linking Agraphia to related topics. We look forward to incorporating your suggestions into future edits. Marisa and I welcome any further contributions or comments that will make this article stronger. CWright93 ( talk) 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the cleanup tags from the top of the article, as we now have a fairly decent article: nice collaboration !!! However, there are still issues that should be resolved.
Even as late as yesterday, new primary sources were being added. I've left some of the text cited to primary sources as it can probably be cited to secondary reviews (please upgrade the citations if you are able).
There are also still some patches of confusing that could be cleared up, and the lead should probably includes one, at most two, sentences on treatment, and a sentence on history (the lead should be a summary of the article, see WP:LEAD).
A more substantial problem is that there is some text in the table in "Characteristics" that belongs in a "Causes" section. That needs to be sorted out.
Long term, I suggest that it might be better to present the Characteristics section as prose rather than table format. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer reviews from fellow students | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Good page, comprehensive look at agraphia! The formatting of the different types is different from the usual "bulletpoint" formatting in Wikipedia, not sure tables are the best way...That said, they present a clear way to find which symptoms/causes apply to which specific type of agraphia. Also the causes paragraph could use a more clear formatting, in contrast with the tables it's a little messy. Maybe setting up a table for them according to the type would be clearer. I would also label management differently, and call it rehabilitation or something similar. The history of discovery section is great, very complete, though maybe you guys could include more on 20th century headway? All in all, good job, excellent overview of the disorder. Chabz333-- Chabz333 ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Reread for small language errors in paragraph one. Characteristics • Consider relabeling first 2 paragraphs of section, perhaps, “sub-categories”. • In “Global” section, rewrite so as to not refer to “deep agraphia” above. They should all be able to be read independently. • When referring to problems with reading, you could link to alexia. I am not sure if this is the only disorder certain types of agraphia are related to. • Good use of tables Peripheral Agraphia • Check wording in “Apraxic agraphia” description. • Interesting motor disorders involved with apraxic agraphia. • In “Reiterative apraphia”, it would be helpful and interesting to have an example. • More info on “Hysterical agraphia” would be helpful Causes • Put each type of agraphia that you mention in bold for easier skimming and reading. Alzheimer’s Disease • Nice section. • Clarify first sentence of second paragraph. Management • The last bullet point seems out of place in this section. General Comments • Nice job. This is am easy article to follow and presents ideas clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia Peer Review Assignment: This review is for only Ana Minchew's work. 1. Quality of Information: 1
2. Article size: 1
3. Readability: 2
5. Links: 1
6. Responsive to comments: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
_______________ I think it would've been beneficial for you to choose an article that no one else was working on. It is difficult to review only your contribution. The whole article looks pretty good overall. You should add some red links to give others opportunity to expand Wikipedia. Add more references and try to incorporate more than only one source into the sections. Morgan Merritt ( talk) 18:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia Peer Review Assignment: This review is for Ana Minchew's work. 1. Quality of Information: 1
2. Article size: 1
3. Readability: 2
5. Links: 2
_______________ Overall comments: It was challenging to narrow this down to what you added alone Ana making it harder to grade. Try to find more sources on the subject, so that you can have multiple references for each topic within the article. MatthewMiller71 ( talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size:1
3. Readability:2
7. Formatting:2
_______________ Total: 17 out of 20 Mac Merritt ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The characteristic sections seems crowded with terms that might confuse the reader. The list is comprehensive but does not provide equal information about each type of agraphia. Perhaps categorizing the description into qualities like causes, symptoms, treatment ect... would aid comparisons. The descriptions do, however, mention differences and similarities between the various types of Agraphia, which I liked. Making the underlying logic to the list’s ordering would also be an improvement. . Further dividing the list into subgroups, not just central and peripheral, might enhance its readability. Consistent citations and links to other pages makes it a good platform for further research. For the causes section. You delve into the neural basis of writing and then connect it to the disorder instead of integrating the neural background into the discussion of the disease, which makes it hard to get through the background section because we have no idea how it will connect. I think the management section would work better as a paragraph or a few, instead of a list. Sometimes the result or relative effectiveness of the management strategy is not clear. Perhaps move the history section up to the beginning. Otherwise, a well written and intersting section. David Ullmann 1994 ( talk) 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Joy1818 ( talk) 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all the comments. We changed the Characteristics section from a table to prose format. In the process we took into consideration the comments about clarifications needed. We recognize that there is some causes information in the characteristics section, but we are having difficulty explaining the characteristics without some measure of causes. Additionally, we have added a few sentences to the lead about management and history. We will be keeping the history section at the end of the article to follow the guidelines established by Wikipedia for Medicine related articles. Thank you again!
Mdreher528 (
talk)
23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
In recent years i have compiled a some online PubMed research paper collections which may be of some value to editors wishing to expand this article.
dolfrog ( talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am planning to expand this article as a project for my introductory neuroscience class. Ana Minchew ( talk) 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Our names are Charlotte Wright and Marisa Dreher. We are currently majoring in Neuroscience at Middlebury College. We will be expanding this article over the next few weeks as part of our introductory neuroscience class. Charlotte Wright ( talk) Marisa Dreher ( talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013
I have reorganized the article to conform with WP:MEDMOS, cleaned up section headings per WP:MSH, removed some of the editorializing, and cleaned up the citations to conform with the style originally used (See WP:CITEVAR). I have not checked for copyvio, plagiarism, or too close paraphrasing. This is the version after my initial cleanup, for the commentary below.
Before going on to list the problems, I'll note that the sourcing is good; secondary reviews are mostly used (but a few primary sources should be replaced).
These sorts of issues are throughout the article; it is not helpful for poorly written text to be plopped into an article on a leading website. Please clean up.Individuals have normal quantity of well-formed letters. However they lack of meaningful words.( Wernicke's aphasia is an example of fluent aphasia)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Thank you for your comments as they will make our article stronger. CWright93 ( talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy, Thank you for your input regarding Wright and Dreher's submissions. It seems as though you are quite well versed in Wikipedia language and we are grateful for your input. As the students state, they are working on this for a class project and will certainly take all comments into account. We hope that you will make comments and allow them to make corrections. It will be a great experience for them. Also, it seems that multiple users are working on this page simultaneously: Ana Minchew. We are not related to Ana in anyway, but hope that we can all work together cooperatively to create the best page possible for this topic. We thank you for your patience and for your advice. Kim Cronise —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is Ana Minchew. All of my work is still in my Sandbox (it's still a very rough draft, and I didn't want to upload it until I'd had a chance to clean it up), so if you guys don't mind, we can share the responsibility of writing the article. It shouldn't be too confusing, since Wikipedia keeps a record of who wrote what. Ana Minchew ( talk) User:Ana Minchew/sandbox 02:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ana, Thank you for your willingness to collaborate on this article. Marisa and I really look forward to working with you to make this article stronger. CWright93 ( talk) 01:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues which require coordination between the various related Wikipedia articles concerning Aphasia, Agnosia, Alexia, and Agraphia concerning a wide range of inter-related issues. These issues need to be addressed by all editors, including student editors. These issues all part of continuing research to increase our understanding of human communication how we learn to communicate, and how things can go wrong. It would be a good idea of the students who are attempting to edit these related articles could actually communicate with each other, and other Wikipedia editors who have an interest in and contribute to these articles in order to provide some continuity. Wikipedia is about collaboration, and consensus, and working together. dolfrog ( talk) 13:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Dolfrog: Thank you for your constructive comments on how to further improve this article, as well as linking Agraphia to related topics. We look forward to incorporating your suggestions into future edits. Marisa and I welcome any further contributions or comments that will make this article stronger. CWright93 ( talk) 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the cleanup tags from the top of the article, as we now have a fairly decent article: nice collaboration !!! However, there are still issues that should be resolved.
Even as late as yesterday, new primary sources were being added. I've left some of the text cited to primary sources as it can probably be cited to secondary reviews (please upgrade the citations if you are able).
There are also still some patches of confusing that could be cleared up, and the lead should probably includes one, at most two, sentences on treatment, and a sentence on history (the lead should be a summary of the article, see WP:LEAD).
A more substantial problem is that there is some text in the table in "Characteristics" that belongs in a "Causes" section. That needs to be sorted out.
Long term, I suggest that it might be better to present the Characteristics section as prose rather than table format. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer reviews from fellow students | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Good page, comprehensive look at agraphia! The formatting of the different types is different from the usual "bulletpoint" formatting in Wikipedia, not sure tables are the best way...That said, they present a clear way to find which symptoms/causes apply to which specific type of agraphia. Also the causes paragraph could use a more clear formatting, in contrast with the tables it's a little messy. Maybe setting up a table for them according to the type would be clearer. I would also label management differently, and call it rehabilitation or something similar. The history of discovery section is great, very complete, though maybe you guys could include more on 20th century headway? All in all, good job, excellent overview of the disorder. Chabz333-- Chabz333 ( talk) 03:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Reread for small language errors in paragraph one. Characteristics • Consider relabeling first 2 paragraphs of section, perhaps, “sub-categories”. • In “Global” section, rewrite so as to not refer to “deep agraphia” above. They should all be able to be read independently. • When referring to problems with reading, you could link to alexia. I am not sure if this is the only disorder certain types of agraphia are related to. • Good use of tables Peripheral Agraphia • Check wording in “Apraxic agraphia” description. • Interesting motor disorders involved with apraxic agraphia. • In “Reiterative apraphia”, it would be helpful and interesting to have an example. • More info on “Hysterical agraphia” would be helpful Causes • Put each type of agraphia that you mention in bold for easier skimming and reading. Alzheimer’s Disease • Nice section. • Clarify first sentence of second paragraph. Management • The last bullet point seems out of place in this section. General Comments • Nice job. This is am easy article to follow and presents ideas clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia Peer Review Assignment: This review is for only Ana Minchew's work. 1. Quality of Information: 1
2. Article size: 1
3. Readability: 2
5. Links: 1
6. Responsive to comments: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
_______________ I think it would've been beneficial for you to choose an article that no one else was working on. It is difficult to review only your contribution. The whole article looks pretty good overall. You should add some red links to give others opportunity to expand Wikipedia. Add more references and try to incorporate more than only one source into the sections. Morgan Merritt ( talk) 18:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia Peer Review Assignment: This review is for Ana Minchew's work. 1. Quality of Information: 1
2. Article size: 1
3. Readability: 2
5. Links: 2
_______________ Overall comments: It was challenging to narrow this down to what you added alone Ana making it harder to grade. Try to find more sources on the subject, so that you can have multiple references for each topic within the article. MatthewMiller71 ( talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size:1
3. Readability:2
7. Formatting:2
_______________ Total: 17 out of 20 Mac Merritt ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The characteristic sections seems crowded with terms that might confuse the reader. The list is comprehensive but does not provide equal information about each type of agraphia. Perhaps categorizing the description into qualities like causes, symptoms, treatment ect... would aid comparisons. The descriptions do, however, mention differences and similarities between the various types of Agraphia, which I liked. Making the underlying logic to the list’s ordering would also be an improvement. . Further dividing the list into subgroups, not just central and peripheral, might enhance its readability. Consistent citations and links to other pages makes it a good platform for further research. For the causes section. You delve into the neural basis of writing and then connect it to the disorder instead of integrating the neural background into the discussion of the disease, which makes it hard to get through the background section because we have no idea how it will connect. I think the management section would work better as a paragraph or a few, instead of a list. Sometimes the result or relative effectiveness of the management strategy is not clear. Perhaps move the history section up to the beginning. Otherwise, a well written and intersting section. David Ullmann 1994 ( talk) 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Joy1818 ( talk) 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all the comments. We changed the Characteristics section from a table to prose format. In the process we took into consideration the comments about clarifications needed. We recognize that there is some causes information in the characteristics section, but we are having difficulty explaining the characteristics without some measure of causes. Additionally, we have added a few sentences to the lead about management and history. We will be keeping the history section at the end of the article to follow the guidelines established by Wikipedia for Medicine related articles. Thank you again!
Mdreher528 (
talk)
23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)