Talk:Amorphosynthesis

As part of a class, "Introduction to Neuroscience," being taught at Middlebury College in Fall 2013 my partner (User:Rterrones) and I have done research on this topic and compiled it to expand the existing article. We kept all previous edits and citations, though we changed slightly and moved the sentence describing occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery. We will be working on this project until 12/7/2013 and are planning on adding one more section describing Fazlullah's research. We welcome all comments and advice! Neuroit (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed the copyright text, and rewrote the definition. I was just trying out my first article, so I copied and pasted to see what stuff looks like. Need more to complete the article though. Chitniss (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that I may have allayed the problem.123Mike456Winston789 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

Comment 1

Hi guys! First of all, nice job with organization! I think the way you bullet point and have sub titles, is a very clear way to show your material. However, there is a big switch from bullet points to paragraphs in your page. I realize that that is probably because you are working on this as a partnership, but a more consistent style might make it look better. Moreover, under signs and symptoms, you only cite at the end. Did you get all of your information from that site? It isn't necessarily clear where all your info is from throughout the page, you might want to add more citations in general. I think you do a great job of incorporating wiki in site citations and those are very helpful. I think adding pictures would add a lot to your page! If you could add fMRI images, diagrams, or drawings of the brain and address the picture to explain where the lesion is, that would be helpful. Furthermore, if there are pictures or videos that show symptoms, that could add a visual dimension to your signs and symptoms section. I like your specific case studies, they make the Amorphosynthesis more tangible and understandable. I think the information you present is clear and easy to follow. Good job! Hopefully my suggestions make sense, let me know if you need anything clarified! Kelseyphinney (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2

It's looking good! I also really appreciate the organization and clarity of your page. I just have a few suggestions:

Firstly, the Fazlullah section under "Case Studies" could use some links to other Wikipedia pages (e.g. anosognosia and the other symptoms mentioned, spinal cord glioma, and a few more) so that people can better understand what's being described if they want to go to those pages.

Along that same vein, in the History section at the end I think it would be useful to link to pages like Hermann Oppenheim so that readers can find out more about those discoveries if they want to.

One minor thing would be to clarify that the patient in the Cherington section is experiencing amorphosynthesis (you basically describe all the symptoms of it, but stating it definitively may make the information seem even more relevant).

I agree with the first comment in that some visuals may help your page, specifically any visuals of parietal lobe lesions or displays of the symptoms of amorphosynthesis.

Lastly, I think the statement that no further research is being done on tactile-research is a little general. It could be true, and I don't doubt that your resource said exactly that, I just think that research could be going on about this topic without being published yet or is simply too obscure. It's not a big deal, I don't think, just something that I noted as possibly problematic.

Your page really is well laid-out and explained, so great job! Good luck with future revisions and I hope that my suggestions have been at least somewhat helpful.

Alex.traxler (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3

As noted above, nice clarity in the signs and symptoms section, but I also agree with the above suggestions that the change from a list format to paragraph may be a bit abrupt.

I think that you have some great information included in the case studies, but I'm not sure if summarizing each study is traditional Wikipedia style formatting. Perhaps if you take the main scientific points from each study and make those your headings, you can then cite each article and its findings within the new sections.

The history section could be moved closer to the top of the page, although this is really a matter of personal preference. It may make more chronological sense to outline the causes, signs, symptoms and history before you dive into scientific studies about amorphosynthesis.

Did you think about possible parallels to Blindsight? It might be interesting to compare and contrast the biological causes, symptoms and treatments of amorphosynthesis and blindsight, as there seem to be many similarities.

This is getting really nit-picky, but you may want to shake up the wording of the bullet points so that every point doesn't begin with "A patient is unable to/cannot, etc. By varying the word choice the list could be even more dynamic and less repetitive.

Overall, great job, I thought! LavigneNSCI101 (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment 4

The first sections of text are almost entirely formatted in bullets. While clear and informative, it does decrease readability and is highly atypical for wiki articles. Consider, instead, changing these sections into paragraph form

The “Primary Research” section is largely well written and informative! However, the organization is not ideal. Readers coming to this page for information about amorphosynthesis will not be looking for a section about Deeny-Brown and Banker. Instead, this section should be organized by the type of findings, even if it means not presenting each researcher’s work as a distinct section.

Overall, great article, well written and informative with appropriate links to other wiki articles. Some formatting to remove excessive bulleting of information and present the findings of studies in a more logical fashion is suggested. Information should be presented in the most easily accessible format for a potential reader to learn about the disorder, not the work of different researchers. Let me know if you need any clarification about what I've mentioned! Akreuzman (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)