Mu wave has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found both Mu wave and Mu rhythm on wikipedia, while I think both should mean the same thing. Since I'm not certain, I proposed to merge the two pages together. Addone ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. Also it has to be merged with the Sensorimotor rhythm article, as they both describe the same neurophysiological phenomenon, that of smr/mu oscillations, an rhythm that overlaps with the alpha in range and differentiate mostly spatially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchonMD ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You can find this as a normal variant in EEG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.237.229 ( talk • contribs) 15:13, November 24, 2011
Copied from Talk:Mu rhythm. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Fellow editors,
We are students at Roosevelt University and would like to submit this outline proposing contributions that we will be making to the Mu Wave article in the near future. We will be rewriting the introduction, and plan for our contributions to be about six paragraphs long. Please feel free to offer any suggestions or comments.
FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC) FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 11:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Neuropsychprof ( talk) 12:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Overall, it looks well written and sourced. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It is very well organized, I especially liked the development section as you tied in many different ways that the mu wave has effects on childhood learning. I noticed there was talk about links by previous reviewers, but I think that you have an appropriate amount of links to the important concepts, maybe it seems off balance because I found many of the links are initially in the introduction paragraph, which I think is fine because it's a good way to get acquainted immediately with a topic if one doesn't know via a link so that the rest of the mu article is clearer, but if it seems necessary then maybe in the paragraphs about development and mirror neurons and autism there could be more links, since each has only about two links which is significantly less then the rest of the article's sections, but honestly it doesn't hinder me much and in fact I don't really see what more in those two sections you could link. But just to give my opinion and work off of what tryptofish and smallman12q were saying that could be a suggestion. I think the article is really well thought out and shows the effort placed into it. ( Justine28 ( talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC))
So as reading this it is very informational, the organization is well done. The following information after the background of Mu Waves is very well put together. The comments before mine have already gave really good feedback on what to fix. The section that I enjoyed the most was the Brain-computer interfaces section of the page. This was something I never read about before hence made this a very interesting section of the wiki page. I also haven't seen any gramatical errors or spelling errors so that is good. Keep up the good work guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolazSalinas ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This article's content and organization are good. I do have some comments:
Keep up your excellent work! Neuropsychprof ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
As I read more about the mu wave, I run into more and more references to the sensorimotor rhythm as phenomenon separate from the mu rhythm. I don't see much of a difference between the two except frequency, but the sensorimotor rhythm's frequency is consistently described as 11-15 Hz, whereas the mu wave's frequency is usually described as either 8-12 Hz or 8-13 Hz. There is some overlap in frequency, but I am starting to feel uncomfortable with our references to the sensorimotor rhythm as being synonymous with the mu wave. If we decide that they are different phenomena, should we remove sensorimotor rhythm from the "see also" section as well as removing references to it in the text of the article? This seems like a large change for me to make without a consensus, especially since the original suggestion from ArchonMD to combine the two articles was part of a discussion that is now archived. Suggestions would be welcome. FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
To address Smallman12q's question regarding the effects of aging and drugs on the mu wave, we have been unsuccessful in finding secondary sources that give any useful information on these topics. There are one or two illnesses, such as Parkinson's disease, that are both associated with aging and known to affect mu wave function. I am uncomfortable presenting these illnesses as examples of what happens during normal aging, though. The fact is that there is comparatively little research out there on the mu wave in infancy, and research on aging is generally more sparse than research on early life. We ran into the same problem with a lack of secondary sources when investigating the effects of drugs on the mu wave. Primary sources on Parkinson's disease came up again, this time in the context of L-dopa. There weren't very many even of those. Smallman12q's questions were good ones, but do not seem to have answers that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in an article yet. FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 04:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The introduction looks good; it makes for a nice shorter version of the article for those without time to read about the topic in full. (Inserted after) I can say the same for the "History" section; all MOS guidlines appear to be followed here. (Inserted after) Similarly, I see no issues with the writing in "Mu waves and mirror neurons", or its subsection "Mirror neurons and autism". (Inserted after) I do not see any such problems in "Development" or its subsection "Development in individuals with autism", either. (Inserted after) The final content section, "Brain-computer interfaces", also has good prose, without any grammatical issues. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing in the content appears to have been "left to chance", so to speak; all sections are diversely and frequently cited, the references are all reputable published sources, and a well-arranged list of references is included at the end of the article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
After having read through the article, I feel that it does cover all necessary aspects of the topic for which reliable information is available. I saw no "trivia" or irrelevant information inserted anywhere in the content, nor did I see any excess detail-issues of any other sort. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The article's content is neutral, not giving weight or implication to any promotion or demotion of any aspect of the topic. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The article has not, prior to this review, been edited in nearly a month, and none of the most recent edits appear to have been any kind of revert, including edit warring. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The two images in this article are from the Wikimedia Commons, with valid licences, so there is no fair-use issue in this article. Both images provide relevant visual information and illustration to the article and are well-captioned. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
After reading the article thoroughly, and checking over all aspects of the article in correlation to GA criteria, I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, even excelling at some, and is more than ready to be included amongst other "Biology and medicine" GAs. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Mu wave has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found both Mu wave and Mu rhythm on wikipedia, while I think both should mean the same thing. Since I'm not certain, I proposed to merge the two pages together. Addone ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. Also it has to be merged with the Sensorimotor rhythm article, as they both describe the same neurophysiological phenomenon, that of smr/mu oscillations, an rhythm that overlaps with the alpha in range and differentiate mostly spatially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchonMD ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
You can find this as a normal variant in EEG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.237.229 ( talk • contribs) 15:13, November 24, 2011
Copied from Talk:Mu rhythm. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Fellow editors,
We are students at Roosevelt University and would like to submit this outline proposing contributions that we will be making to the Mu Wave article in the near future. We will be rewriting the introduction, and plan for our contributions to be about six paragraphs long. Please feel free to offer any suggestions or comments.
FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC) FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 11:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Neuropsychprof ( talk) 12:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Overall, it looks well written and sourced. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It is very well organized, I especially liked the development section as you tied in many different ways that the mu wave has effects on childhood learning. I noticed there was talk about links by previous reviewers, but I think that you have an appropriate amount of links to the important concepts, maybe it seems off balance because I found many of the links are initially in the introduction paragraph, which I think is fine because it's a good way to get acquainted immediately with a topic if one doesn't know via a link so that the rest of the mu article is clearer, but if it seems necessary then maybe in the paragraphs about development and mirror neurons and autism there could be more links, since each has only about two links which is significantly less then the rest of the article's sections, but honestly it doesn't hinder me much and in fact I don't really see what more in those two sections you could link. But just to give my opinion and work off of what tryptofish and smallman12q were saying that could be a suggestion. I think the article is really well thought out and shows the effort placed into it. ( Justine28 ( talk) 03:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC))
So as reading this it is very informational, the organization is well done. The following information after the background of Mu Waves is very well put together. The comments before mine have already gave really good feedback on what to fix. The section that I enjoyed the most was the Brain-computer interfaces section of the page. This was something I never read about before hence made this a very interesting section of the wiki page. I also haven't seen any gramatical errors or spelling errors so that is good. Keep up the good work guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolazSalinas ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This article's content and organization are good. I do have some comments:
Keep up your excellent work! Neuropsychprof ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
As I read more about the mu wave, I run into more and more references to the sensorimotor rhythm as phenomenon separate from the mu rhythm. I don't see much of a difference between the two except frequency, but the sensorimotor rhythm's frequency is consistently described as 11-15 Hz, whereas the mu wave's frequency is usually described as either 8-12 Hz or 8-13 Hz. There is some overlap in frequency, but I am starting to feel uncomfortable with our references to the sensorimotor rhythm as being synonymous with the mu wave. If we decide that they are different phenomena, should we remove sensorimotor rhythm from the "see also" section as well as removing references to it in the text of the article? This seems like a large change for me to make without a consensus, especially since the original suggestion from ArchonMD to combine the two articles was part of a discussion that is now archived. Suggestions would be welcome. FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
To address Smallman12q's question regarding the effects of aging and drugs on the mu wave, we have been unsuccessful in finding secondary sources that give any useful information on these topics. There are one or two illnesses, such as Parkinson's disease, that are both associated with aging and known to affect mu wave function. I am uncomfortable presenting these illnesses as examples of what happens during normal aging, though. The fact is that there is comparatively little research out there on the mu wave in infancy, and research on aging is generally more sparse than research on early life. We ran into the same problem with a lack of secondary sources when investigating the effects of drugs on the mu wave. Primary sources on Parkinson's disease came up again, this time in the context of L-dopa. There weren't very many even of those. Smallman12q's questions were good ones, but do not seem to have answers that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in an article yet. FutureSocialNeuroscientist ( talk) 04:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The introduction looks good; it makes for a nice shorter version of the article for those without time to read about the topic in full. (Inserted after) I can say the same for the "History" section; all MOS guidlines appear to be followed here. (Inserted after) Similarly, I see no issues with the writing in "Mu waves and mirror neurons", or its subsection "Mirror neurons and autism". (Inserted after) I do not see any such problems in "Development" or its subsection "Development in individuals with autism", either. (Inserted after) The final content section, "Brain-computer interfaces", also has good prose, without any grammatical issues. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 11:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing in the content appears to have been "left to chance", so to speak; all sections are diversely and frequently cited, the references are all reputable published sources, and a well-arranged list of references is included at the end of the article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
After having read through the article, I feel that it does cover all necessary aspects of the topic for which reliable information is available. I saw no "trivia" or irrelevant information inserted anywhere in the content, nor did I see any excess detail-issues of any other sort. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The article's content is neutral, not giving weight or implication to any promotion or demotion of any aspect of the topic. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The article has not, prior to this review, been edited in nearly a month, and none of the most recent edits appear to have been any kind of revert, including edit warring. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The two images in this article are from the Wikimedia Commons, with valid licences, so there is no fair-use issue in this article. Both images provide relevant visual information and illustration to the article and are well-captioned. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
After reading the article thoroughly, and checking over all aspects of the article in correlation to GA criteria, I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, even excelling at some, and is more than ready to be included amongst other "Biology and medicine" GAs. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! ( talk) 12:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)