![]() | Referred itch was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here. |
Why does the article just randomly start using the term "mitempfindung" in place of the one in the title of the article, without explaining what "mitempfindung" means or where it comes from? I mean yeah, you can find it waaaaay down there in the History section, but why should you need to read that to understand what's being said in the introductory paragraphs of the article? 24.183.229.59 ( talk) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I edited the second sentence, added by someone else, to make it grammatical; but is there any evidence for its truth? In perusing the two linked sources, I didn't see any support for the sentence.
The sentence reads: "Referred itch" may also refer to the phenomenon in which one feels an itch on one part of the body, but upon attempting to scratch it comes to experience it in a different location, although the scratch on the original part of the body feels like it is successfully targeting the itch.
- SI, Feb. 21, 2007
The sentence that needed clarification was edited, so the "clarification needed" subscript was removed. Micahsy ( talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have made some general comments for the whole class at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Please look at them since some are applyable to this article. See some examples below:
More to come as I have time.-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Good luck AndyD147 ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Micahsy ( talk) 02:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I thought the article included a lot of pertinent information, but I would definitely recommend that it be adjusted so that the page flows better. Overall, Wikipedia tries to be written in a style so that the average user can more or less understand the topic. The introduction does a good job of conveying some of the basic information, but I think the body gets rather complex and does not give enough background to understand the technical information. I would recommend minimizing the amount of scientific jargon if possible, as well as briefly explaining anything that is brought up. You already did this in a few areas using parenthesis, which worked great in those instances. Other than that, a few of the more obscure topics still need links to their respective pages, if possible. Images would be great too, but it's likely you weren't unable to find any. When I was writing the article for my group I looked at some of the "good page" samples on Wikipedia for other biology articles to mimic their balance of detail and general information- you guys may find this helpful also. Another thing is the use of capitalization- I'm pretty sure you don't want to be capitalizing "Mitempfindung" as was done in a few of the sections (namely the introduction). Also, another Wikipedia editor mentioned to me that "conclusion" paragraphs are not often used, so I would consider whether or not you want to keep the one at the bottom of your page. Overall though, the page seemed well researched and adequately sourced, so I would say you guys did a good job covering all the aspects of the topic. At this point it's mostly just issues of writing style more than anything.
Pathyland (
talk)
15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to start by saying that I think this article has very clear and concise paragraphs with quality information. As for modifications, I want to echo some of the comments above to start and just briefly say that the reference page is quite long and that all the references at the ends of sentences are formatted differently. I think both of these issues can be fixed pretty easily. (I think the proper format is to have a period, followed by the reference, followed by a space, and then the next sentence.) Also, I have seen reference pages which have links to PubMed on them. I feel that that would definitely go to making this section look good. Another edit I would consider making is moving the Epidemiology section to after the Causes section and moving the Normal and Pathological Referred Itch section to immediately underneath the Pathophysiology section. I feel like this may help the whole article flow much better. I think that the Normal and Pathological Referred Itch Section is especially helpful in distinguishing the different types of referred itch. I also reiterate the need for an image in this article. It is spaced out nicely, so it is not very dense, but an image would certainly improve it. I know that this may be difficult, since this is a less concrete subject, but I would recommend searching through some of the articles in the reference section. They are bound to have an interesting, usable image to describe this phenomena. I would also recommend looking through the article one more time for words that should be liked. I do not feel the article is overlinked or underlinked, but some words such as
histamine or
opioid may have been linked and probably should be. I hope this has been somewhat helpful.
Sean J. Dikdan (
talk)
21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is quite informative given the paucity of information that exists on referred itch. There is good use of a neutral tone. However, I have a few comments regarding grammar, structure, and Wikipedia conventions. First of all, there are numerous instances of unnecessary capitalization. Besides proper nouns, only first words in titles or sentences should be capitalized. For example, "Mitempfindung" does not have to be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Same thing goes for section titles - only the first word is capitalized according to Wikipedia convention. In addition, there are a couple of spelling errors such as "pathophisiology" and the misuse of "illicit." Also check the spelling for "pruritoceptic" because when you linked it, it came out red, meaning that there is no page in existence for it on Wikipedia. Grammatically speaking, rethink starting sentences with "And" or "With" as that is not really correct grammar. Look out for sentences that lack periods at the end. When citing 2 or more references in a row, I don't think it's necessary to put a semicolon in between them. It may be easier to take advantage of the citation templates when inserting citations, as they will automatically link the source's web address and title to the actual source; try to explore that when you are in the Edit tab. Also, when you want to cite the same source more than once, it is not necessary to repeat the exact same code every time. In the citation templates, there is a field for "ref name" - the first time you cite a source, you can attribute a sort of 'nickname' to the source that can be used in a shorter code each subsequent time you cite the same source. For example, you can make the ref name for one article something like "itch" when you put it in the template for the original citation, and then every time you want to cite the same reference after that, you can type in a shorter code when you edit (look it up on Help to find how), and that will automatically cite the same source. Explore the edit feature with this to make sure it makes sense to you. When you are able to do this, you will not get duplicate references for the same articles - instead of having ~50 citations you will end up with probably fewer than 20. I worry that a lot of your sources are primary literature papers, meaning that they are primary sources and not secondary - search for more secondary/tertiary sources such as review articles, books, or textbooks. Contentwise, I wonder if you could expand on the proposed mechanism about the peripheral nerves - why exactly is it unlikely? Finally, it may be useful to clarify or explain in more detail "Amazonian medine sangre de grado" to shed light on its significance. Sorry for the rambling, but I hope you find this useful and let me know if you need more help with the citation conventions. I appreciate the information you are presenting so far because I believe that the nature of this phenomenon may make it difficult to find a lot of conclusive data. Keep up the good work! --
JCal2011 (
talk)
22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I’m happy to say that this article has come a long way since the new revisions. You have an excellent amount of scientific information here. However, if you wish to make it go from being a “stub class” article to a higher level then I suggest that you do a little more clarification with the scientific jargon. Most good scientific wiki pages are written in some fashion that your average layperson can understand without prior scientific knowledge. Therefore, I suggest simplifying the section entitled “Pathophisiology”. First off, the word is misspelled and should be spelled pathophysiology. Next, I would simplify or add more hyperlinks to the beginning few sentences of that section where you say “Once stimulated, usually by histamine within the body… or in response to the presence of excess opioids”. You do a good job explaining what specific scientific words mean in brackets, however, even the words in the brackets are very dense scientific terms. Because your article is pertinent to human sensation, I would suggest giving a brief and general synopsis about human sensation and touch. In other words, your article on referred itch is a very specific point in terms of sensation. You also mention the term ‘trigger zones’ in several areas of the article without actually explaining what they are or put them in context. Again, I stress the use of hyperlinks and simplification. In the ‘causes’ section you refer to the body’s release of histamine. I would hyperlink this word. Lastly, I would suggest adding a section that explains the implications of “referred itch”, such as, why is this article important to the world of medicine? What future research or connections can be draw from such knowledge about referred itch? So far so good! You have a lot of great information and detail; it just comes down to simplifying them. Keep up the good work.
Kevin Pádraic (
talk)
02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that you guys have gathered a lot of information about the topic, and I think you've done a great job expanding the article thus far. At this point, I think you should focus on organization and Wiki formatting. First, I think you should fine tune the introduction so that it is clear and concise. Some of the information about symptoms and research should be included in later sections of the article (maybe look at the format for the pages of other medical conditions). You could probably eliminate the last sentence all together, because much of this information will be conveyed in your reference section and in the current research section. Next, I think the mechanisms section will be especially important to expand upon in order to make a stronger article. My group encountered a lot of frustration with competing theories and lack of empirical studies that explain our phenomenon (synaptic gating). I think the best way to combat a limited pool of information is to explain thoroughly and in more common language all of theories that exist. Remember, it's not your job to figure out the "right" answer, all you have to do is provide any important information that exists on the topic. Finally, I would take a look at how you use information from different sources--you shouldn't have to use the researcher's name (for example, when you use Sterling under epidemiology or Evans under mechanisms) as long as you cite the source of the information. For example, instead of saying "Mittelmann (1920) has reported that 8 out of 9 people questioned experienced referred sensations" you could say "Studies have shown that as many as 8 out of 9 people experience referred sensations" and then cite Mittlemann's article. Anyway, most of these suggestions are sylistic, but I think you guys are definitely on the right track. Hope this helps!
Stempera (
talk)
04:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This article was very clear and informative. Great job sifting through your sources to pull out facts on what may have little to no information on the subject. As some of the other peer reviews mention, the grammar and the random capitalization does distract the reader from comprehending the literature. Try to read it out loud to one of your partners because I know sometimes when I proof read i skip over extra words that shouldn't even be there or are missing entirely. I suggest that instead of listing an authors name when citing just state the facts in the neutral voice. Also, in a casual setting, the parenthesis do a great job explaining, but I am not sure if they are up to wikipedia's standards. I am probably wrong but, rewording the sentences without the parenthesis may make it seem more professional. In terms of content, I think you guys did a great job nailing what topics to cover but I would suggest moving the history towards the top to provide a better sense of flow to the page. Also, under mechanisms I felt that they were a bit contradictory. The word theory implies that it has yet to be proven false. I think the more appropriate term would be hypothesis when mentioning the different proposed ideas. I was very intrigued by the discussion between Synesthesia and Mitempfindung. I would have liked to see more comparisons or more evidence as to why they may be linked/similar. Also, don't forget to consolidate your sources so that the identical ones aren't listed as new sources. Some of the other comments I wanted to make have already been suggested so I hope my advice could help in some way. Good luck with the rest of the project!
Bazoberr (
talk)
07:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: » Swpb τ • ¢ 18:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This article contains adequate information on the topic of referred itch. Though there is limited research of pathophysiological mechanisms, this article discusses a few theories that have scientific merit but lack widespread acceptance. This article meets Wikipedia good article criteria in the following ways. The article is well written overall in its prose, containing a well organized content box, and is free of grammatical error. This article is factually accurate and contains suitable in-text citations to relevant and reliable sources. The nature of this topic however limits factual accuracy because proposed mechanisms that have been previously discussed have not been proven. The inclusion of multiple theories is necessary when addressing contentious ideas, and is important for the reader in developing reasonable conclusion of fact. Evaluating referred itch and its relevant history gives this article a good deal of scope of material. Though this article displays neutrality, its stability can be questioned because of its inconclusive research. Even though research is inconclusive, it is unlikely that breakthrough study in the near future will repudiate the facts brought forth. Mhutchinson91 ( talk) 04:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been about a week since any real edits have been made to the article; I'm putting the review on hold for now, pending changes addressing the points I listed above. I think this article has potential; it would be a shame for it to not pass GA.
As for the image that was added, I'd like to see a bit more explanation of what it means - which points are stimulus and which are sensation? » Swpb τ • ¢ 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
✗ Fail Unfortunately, it's been a week since I put the article on hold, without improvement, so I think it's time to call this nomination a fail; I would note to anyone reading this review, however, that the article is mostly well-written, and would probably not take too much effort to bring up to GA status, should someone want to take up the cause. Also, the nominator(s) should be commended for the improvements they made to what was a stub, and I hope they earned high marks on their school project. » Swpb τ • ¢ 19:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, nice job with the article, it's in much better shape than before. A few points:
NeuroJoe ( talk) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Either I'm reading this incorrectly, or there appears to be duplicate content in the "Mechanisms" section. Specifically, The 6th paragraph appears to be an unrevised copy of the 2nd paragraph. Mmseng ( talk) 04:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to incorporate new research regarding the scientific basis of acupuncture into relevant pages. One of the users that has been opposing me is @ User:2over0. In this , removed accurate information that improves the article. This is clearly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. - Technophant ( talk) 04:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup high quality secondary sources like review articles are needed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I apologize if my revert resulted in extra work in cleaning up this article and appreciate the hard work of other editors to improve this article. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Who is Kowalewsky? This person has been referred to since the article was created, but with no explanation of who he is. The link goes to the page for the surname, not the person. 184.67.135.194 ( talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Referred itch was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available here. |
Why does the article just randomly start using the term "mitempfindung" in place of the one in the title of the article, without explaining what "mitempfindung" means or where it comes from? I mean yeah, you can find it waaaaay down there in the History section, but why should you need to read that to understand what's being said in the introductory paragraphs of the article? 24.183.229.59 ( talk) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I edited the second sentence, added by someone else, to make it grammatical; but is there any evidence for its truth? In perusing the two linked sources, I didn't see any support for the sentence.
The sentence reads: "Referred itch" may also refer to the phenomenon in which one feels an itch on one part of the body, but upon attempting to scratch it comes to experience it in a different location, although the scratch on the original part of the body feels like it is successfully targeting the itch.
- SI, Feb. 21, 2007
The sentence that needed clarification was edited, so the "clarification needed" subscript was removed. Micahsy ( talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have made some general comments for the whole class at User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Please look at them since some are applyable to this article. See some examples below:
More to come as I have time.-- Garrondo ( talk) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Good luck AndyD147 ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Micahsy ( talk) 02:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I thought the article included a lot of pertinent information, but I would definitely recommend that it be adjusted so that the page flows better. Overall, Wikipedia tries to be written in a style so that the average user can more or less understand the topic. The introduction does a good job of conveying some of the basic information, but I think the body gets rather complex and does not give enough background to understand the technical information. I would recommend minimizing the amount of scientific jargon if possible, as well as briefly explaining anything that is brought up. You already did this in a few areas using parenthesis, which worked great in those instances. Other than that, a few of the more obscure topics still need links to their respective pages, if possible. Images would be great too, but it's likely you weren't unable to find any. When I was writing the article for my group I looked at some of the "good page" samples on Wikipedia for other biology articles to mimic their balance of detail and general information- you guys may find this helpful also. Another thing is the use of capitalization- I'm pretty sure you don't want to be capitalizing "Mitempfindung" as was done in a few of the sections (namely the introduction). Also, another Wikipedia editor mentioned to me that "conclusion" paragraphs are not often used, so I would consider whether or not you want to keep the one at the bottom of your page. Overall though, the page seemed well researched and adequately sourced, so I would say you guys did a good job covering all the aspects of the topic. At this point it's mostly just issues of writing style more than anything.
Pathyland (
talk)
15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to start by saying that I think this article has very clear and concise paragraphs with quality information. As for modifications, I want to echo some of the comments above to start and just briefly say that the reference page is quite long and that all the references at the ends of sentences are formatted differently. I think both of these issues can be fixed pretty easily. (I think the proper format is to have a period, followed by the reference, followed by a space, and then the next sentence.) Also, I have seen reference pages which have links to PubMed on them. I feel that that would definitely go to making this section look good. Another edit I would consider making is moving the Epidemiology section to after the Causes section and moving the Normal and Pathological Referred Itch section to immediately underneath the Pathophysiology section. I feel like this may help the whole article flow much better. I think that the Normal and Pathological Referred Itch Section is especially helpful in distinguishing the different types of referred itch. I also reiterate the need for an image in this article. It is spaced out nicely, so it is not very dense, but an image would certainly improve it. I know that this may be difficult, since this is a less concrete subject, but I would recommend searching through some of the articles in the reference section. They are bound to have an interesting, usable image to describe this phenomena. I would also recommend looking through the article one more time for words that should be liked. I do not feel the article is overlinked or underlinked, but some words such as
histamine or
opioid may have been linked and probably should be. I hope this has been somewhat helpful.
Sean J. Dikdan (
talk)
21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is quite informative given the paucity of information that exists on referred itch. There is good use of a neutral tone. However, I have a few comments regarding grammar, structure, and Wikipedia conventions. First of all, there are numerous instances of unnecessary capitalization. Besides proper nouns, only first words in titles or sentences should be capitalized. For example, "Mitempfindung" does not have to be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Same thing goes for section titles - only the first word is capitalized according to Wikipedia convention. In addition, there are a couple of spelling errors such as "pathophisiology" and the misuse of "illicit." Also check the spelling for "pruritoceptic" because when you linked it, it came out red, meaning that there is no page in existence for it on Wikipedia. Grammatically speaking, rethink starting sentences with "And" or "With" as that is not really correct grammar. Look out for sentences that lack periods at the end. When citing 2 or more references in a row, I don't think it's necessary to put a semicolon in between them. It may be easier to take advantage of the citation templates when inserting citations, as they will automatically link the source's web address and title to the actual source; try to explore that when you are in the Edit tab. Also, when you want to cite the same source more than once, it is not necessary to repeat the exact same code every time. In the citation templates, there is a field for "ref name" - the first time you cite a source, you can attribute a sort of 'nickname' to the source that can be used in a shorter code each subsequent time you cite the same source. For example, you can make the ref name for one article something like "itch" when you put it in the template for the original citation, and then every time you want to cite the same reference after that, you can type in a shorter code when you edit (look it up on Help to find how), and that will automatically cite the same source. Explore the edit feature with this to make sure it makes sense to you. When you are able to do this, you will not get duplicate references for the same articles - instead of having ~50 citations you will end up with probably fewer than 20. I worry that a lot of your sources are primary literature papers, meaning that they are primary sources and not secondary - search for more secondary/tertiary sources such as review articles, books, or textbooks. Contentwise, I wonder if you could expand on the proposed mechanism about the peripheral nerves - why exactly is it unlikely? Finally, it may be useful to clarify or explain in more detail "Amazonian medine sangre de grado" to shed light on its significance. Sorry for the rambling, but I hope you find this useful and let me know if you need more help with the citation conventions. I appreciate the information you are presenting so far because I believe that the nature of this phenomenon may make it difficult to find a lot of conclusive data. Keep up the good work! --
JCal2011 (
talk)
22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I’m happy to say that this article has come a long way since the new revisions. You have an excellent amount of scientific information here. However, if you wish to make it go from being a “stub class” article to a higher level then I suggest that you do a little more clarification with the scientific jargon. Most good scientific wiki pages are written in some fashion that your average layperson can understand without prior scientific knowledge. Therefore, I suggest simplifying the section entitled “Pathophisiology”. First off, the word is misspelled and should be spelled pathophysiology. Next, I would simplify or add more hyperlinks to the beginning few sentences of that section where you say “Once stimulated, usually by histamine within the body… or in response to the presence of excess opioids”. You do a good job explaining what specific scientific words mean in brackets, however, even the words in the brackets are very dense scientific terms. Because your article is pertinent to human sensation, I would suggest giving a brief and general synopsis about human sensation and touch. In other words, your article on referred itch is a very specific point in terms of sensation. You also mention the term ‘trigger zones’ in several areas of the article without actually explaining what they are or put them in context. Again, I stress the use of hyperlinks and simplification. In the ‘causes’ section you refer to the body’s release of histamine. I would hyperlink this word. Lastly, I would suggest adding a section that explains the implications of “referred itch”, such as, why is this article important to the world of medicine? What future research or connections can be draw from such knowledge about referred itch? So far so good! You have a lot of great information and detail; it just comes down to simplifying them. Keep up the good work.
Kevin Pádraic (
talk)
02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It's clear that you guys have gathered a lot of information about the topic, and I think you've done a great job expanding the article thus far. At this point, I think you should focus on organization and Wiki formatting. First, I think you should fine tune the introduction so that it is clear and concise. Some of the information about symptoms and research should be included in later sections of the article (maybe look at the format for the pages of other medical conditions). You could probably eliminate the last sentence all together, because much of this information will be conveyed in your reference section and in the current research section. Next, I think the mechanisms section will be especially important to expand upon in order to make a stronger article. My group encountered a lot of frustration with competing theories and lack of empirical studies that explain our phenomenon (synaptic gating). I think the best way to combat a limited pool of information is to explain thoroughly and in more common language all of theories that exist. Remember, it's not your job to figure out the "right" answer, all you have to do is provide any important information that exists on the topic. Finally, I would take a look at how you use information from different sources--you shouldn't have to use the researcher's name (for example, when you use Sterling under epidemiology or Evans under mechanisms) as long as you cite the source of the information. For example, instead of saying "Mittelmann (1920) has reported that 8 out of 9 people questioned experienced referred sensations" you could say "Studies have shown that as many as 8 out of 9 people experience referred sensations" and then cite Mittlemann's article. Anyway, most of these suggestions are sylistic, but I think you guys are definitely on the right track. Hope this helps!
Stempera (
talk)
04:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This article was very clear and informative. Great job sifting through your sources to pull out facts on what may have little to no information on the subject. As some of the other peer reviews mention, the grammar and the random capitalization does distract the reader from comprehending the literature. Try to read it out loud to one of your partners because I know sometimes when I proof read i skip over extra words that shouldn't even be there or are missing entirely. I suggest that instead of listing an authors name when citing just state the facts in the neutral voice. Also, in a casual setting, the parenthesis do a great job explaining, but I am not sure if they are up to wikipedia's standards. I am probably wrong but, rewording the sentences without the parenthesis may make it seem more professional. In terms of content, I think you guys did a great job nailing what topics to cover but I would suggest moving the history towards the top to provide a better sense of flow to the page. Also, under mechanisms I felt that they were a bit contradictory. The word theory implies that it has yet to be proven false. I think the more appropriate term would be hypothesis when mentioning the different proposed ideas. I was very intrigued by the discussion between Synesthesia and Mitempfindung. I would have liked to see more comparisons or more evidence as to why they may be linked/similar. Also, don't forget to consolidate your sources so that the identical ones aren't listed as new sources. Some of the other comments I wanted to make have already been suggested so I hope my advice could help in some way. Good luck with the rest of the project!
Bazoberr (
talk)
07:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: » Swpb τ • ¢ 18:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This article contains adequate information on the topic of referred itch. Though there is limited research of pathophysiological mechanisms, this article discusses a few theories that have scientific merit but lack widespread acceptance. This article meets Wikipedia good article criteria in the following ways. The article is well written overall in its prose, containing a well organized content box, and is free of grammatical error. This article is factually accurate and contains suitable in-text citations to relevant and reliable sources. The nature of this topic however limits factual accuracy because proposed mechanisms that have been previously discussed have not been proven. The inclusion of multiple theories is necessary when addressing contentious ideas, and is important for the reader in developing reasonable conclusion of fact. Evaluating referred itch and its relevant history gives this article a good deal of scope of material. Though this article displays neutrality, its stability can be questioned because of its inconclusive research. Even though research is inconclusive, it is unlikely that breakthrough study in the near future will repudiate the facts brought forth. Mhutchinson91 ( talk) 04:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been about a week since any real edits have been made to the article; I'm putting the review on hold for now, pending changes addressing the points I listed above. I think this article has potential; it would be a shame for it to not pass GA.
As for the image that was added, I'd like to see a bit more explanation of what it means - which points are stimulus and which are sensation? » Swpb τ • ¢ 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
✗ Fail Unfortunately, it's been a week since I put the article on hold, without improvement, so I think it's time to call this nomination a fail; I would note to anyone reading this review, however, that the article is mostly well-written, and would probably not take too much effort to bring up to GA status, should someone want to take up the cause. Also, the nominator(s) should be commended for the improvements they made to what was a stub, and I hope they earned high marks on their school project. » Swpb τ • ¢ 19:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, nice job with the article, it's in much better shape than before. A few points:
NeuroJoe ( talk) 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Either I'm reading this incorrectly, or there appears to be duplicate content in the "Mechanisms" section. Specifically, The 6th paragraph appears to be an unrevised copy of the 2nd paragraph. Mmseng ( talk) 04:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to incorporate new research regarding the scientific basis of acupuncture into relevant pages. One of the users that has been opposing me is @ User:2over0. In this , removed accurate information that improves the article. This is clearly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. - Technophant ( talk) 04:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup high quality secondary sources like review articles are needed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I apologize if my revert resulted in extra work in cleaning up this article and appreciate the hard work of other editors to improve this article. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Who is Kowalewsky? This person has been referred to since the article was created, but with no explanation of who he is. The link goes to the page for the surname, not the person. 184.67.135.194 ( talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)