Talk:Foix–Chavany–Marie syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

Epilepsy

I've removed the text "It can also cause epilepsy" as I haven't read this anywhere. Indeed, the opposite may be true - see PMID 15175976. Perhaps most commonly, the underlying abnormality or injury is leading to both this syndrome and to epilepsy. Colin°^Talk 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Diagnosis

It doesn't seem right to state that the diagnosis is made through CT or MRI. It is a syndrome after all... Elikarag (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Feedback (merged here from Talk:Bilateral opercular syndrome after being moved there from User talk:Fflorendo/sandbox)

@Fflorendo, 0475ramosk, SewellBio, and Bea2017: Nice work on your article draft.

• You go back and forth between calling it Bilateral opercular syndrome and SFMC. Pick one, and stick to it as much as possible.
• Some of your sections aren't adequately referenced. References should appear immediately after the statements they support. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and there shouldn’t be any text after the last reference in a paragraph.
• You need to use the best available sources. Several of your sources are fairly old - for example, the first source is from 1998 and the second from 1988. Are these best best, most up-to-date sources that you can find to support this information? I suspect not.
• You need to improve your reference formatting. I strongly recommend that you use the Cite tool on the Visual Editor to generate properly-formatted references. In addition, you need to make sure that your citations are complete and include DOIs and PubMed IDs.

• You uploaded two tables, which are tagged as "own work". This means that you created the tables entirely on your own (as opposed to, say, copying them from an existing source). If they are your own work, you need to include the source for the information. You should also re-create them as a vector file (like a .svg) - these images are a little blurry. A vector format would be sharper, and would (I believe) be readable for screen readers. It would really be preferable if you simply made any tables part of the article, instead of an image.
• The first paragraph of History section isn't very clear. You need to re-write it. Terms like "et al." should be avoided in normal writing - "and colleagues" or something of the sort is much more readable. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion (merged here from Talk:Bilateral opercular syndrome after being moved there from User talk:Fflorendo/sandbox)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it is the current name of Foix-Chavany-Marie Syndrome. This is the complete page. The other page on Foix-Chavany-Marie Syndrome has very little information on it. Anyone looking up that topic should be re-directed to this page on Bilateral Opercular Syndrome. --MMBiology (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My impression is similar, and since I wondered if this was a mistake, I have left a message on Jytdog's talk page (as I didn't want to remove the tag myself without more input). If you wish to remove the CSD tag, MMBiology, you're welcome to. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not OK to ignore the existing article and its history. Integrating new content with old content is an essential thing, per WP:ATTRIBUTION. A second and district question and task, is what the name of the page should be. What was done here was not appropriate. Please integrate the content from the sandbox into the existing article,. and then open a discussion on that talk page to discuss renaming it. This should simply be deleted per the duplicate article criterion which this exactly falls under. We have that criterion for a reason. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it still in the sandbox? To access the article and its talk page, I had to myself write forge a nodirect url. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to get the content back. Yes, my students made a mistake on how they went about this, but it was with good intent. They have lots of good information that can be loaded into the FCMS page but now I can't find the content anywhere since it was also deleted from my student's sandbox. Once they update the page with their information, they will post on the talk page about naming the article bilateral anterior ocular syndrome. How do I see the original content? MMBiology (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It is here. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

student content

@Fflorendo, 0475ramosk, SewellBio, and Bea2017: and User:MMBiology, the content you generated that should be integrated here, is here. After you integrate it, if you want to propose renaming/moving this page, you can suggest that in a new section below. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Or Bilateral opercular syndrome if you also want to integrate my minor changes, although you'll then have to ignore the speedy deletion tag. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal For Article Name Change

We would like to make a proposal for changing the name of this page from "Foix-Chavany-Marie Syndrome" to "Bilateral Opercular Syndrome." "Bilateral Opercular Syndrome" more accurately describes the disorder, as it is more closely aligned with medical terminology used today. Perhaps readers can be redirected to "Bilateral Opercular Syndrome" from "Foix-Chavany Marie Syndrome," just as disorders such as "Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis," are redirected from informal medical terminology (the article "Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis" is redirected from the name that it is more commonly known as, "Lou Gehrig's disease"). Francesca Marie A. Florendo 22:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fflorendo (talk • contribs)

WP:TECHNICAL

Per WP:MEDMOS please try to write in plain English. This is super technical and becoming more so... Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Thanks for your contributions, there seems to have been much progress achieved so far. I noticed that the merge may not be complete yet, there are citation references (i.e. using <ref name="name"/> to unexisting, or possibly misnamed citations. I agree that once the article is more finalized, it may be good to delete the other redundant article, then move/disambiguate as necessary. Also see Jytdog's above concern. Thank you, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 23:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Goals

The goal of our contributions was to explain thoroughly the different aspects of this syndrome, since there is not a lot of information available explaining the symptoms, the diagnosis, the treatment, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0475ramosk (talk • contribs) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

If I were you, I would link to several medical terms (eg, thrombotic stroke, embolic stroke, congenital defect, psycholinguistic testing, CT Scan, SPECT, etc.) throughout your article, if possible, so that the article as a whole is accessible to both those with a science and medical background and those with less of a science background to use and understand. Some portions of your article seem disjointed, that they are written by multiple different voices, and it may be easier to follow if it flowed like one single voice. On the whole, all of your article is well written and well researched, just making it more accessible to all Wikipedia users would make it even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshow14 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Student Reviewer

Overall, your group’s article was satisfactory. First and foremost, your group did a good job giving a broad scope of all the information available on the topic. It was neutral, stable, verifiable, and had helpful images. The biggest concern I had with the article was with the several grammatical errors that existing throughout the text. Your group's writing contained grammatical errors, a lack or misuse of punctuation, and several run-on or wordy sentences. This was especially the case in the classification section. Honestly, I would rewrite this section's entire opening paragraph, as well as the section subsection. I would strongly recommend proofreading the entire article and rewriting several sentences. Also, I would advise you to check the tenses within paragraphs and sections as a whole. There are several occasions where the tenses are off, which makes it difficult to read the section. These edits would really help strengthen your article and make it flow easier. As of now, the errors and lack of punctuation make the article extremely choppy to read. I would also recommend adding hyperlinks to several of the key, medical terms, as your article contains several of them. Also, I agree with another reviewer that you should move the history section. It would make most sense to have it early on in the article, as you give background information on the disorder. Gloryrunner13 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Gloryrunner13

Response:

I agree that the page has grammatical errors and run-on or wordy sentences. We are going to proofread each other's part and fix that. Also, we are going to add hyperlinks when necessary. Finally, we moved the History section to the beginning. Thanks!!

student Primary review

Introduction- I like the introduction a lot, but there are a lot of complex words within it. It would be very useful to add simple links to other wiki pages within here, because then people can quickly lookup some of the anatomical definitions. I agree with the other editor that a name change may be in order. Classification: anarthria- perfect example of something that can be defined. Again, just adding brackets [] around anatomical structures can make this page more useful to someone new to this topic. 1.1 Bilateral/Unilateral- Why are these two identified in a different format than the other 4 classifications? It’s a little confusing why these are separate categories. 3.3 Reversible form- I see why this was listed because it is caused by a specific event, but could this be better labeled as “Epilepsy induced” rather than “reversible form”? 4 Pathophysiology- What an excellent gif, A+ 4.1 Neuropathology- “is characterized by the following.” Not a very good way to introduce the material, should be re-worded. 4.2 Anatomopathology- The rarities bulleted could be explained some. i.e. “What is demyelinization?” 5 Management- Easy addition of [MRI] or [CT] to give this some easier navigation. I like how this section was written. 5.2 Imaging- bulletpoint these different types of imaging instead of having them under their own category, or just link out their definition to their appropriate pages---Magnetic resonance imaging CT Scan SPECT Other techniques 6 Diagnosis- the disease is not being referred to as Foix Chavany Marie syndrome. 6.2 Techniques—like the imaging, this can be condensed. Allow this page to focus more on your disease. Automatic-voluntary dissociation assessment Psycholinguistic testing Neuropsychological testing Brain scanning 8 History- great job defining confusing term! 9 Footnotes- not sure why this is not labeled references. 10 References- I would list this as “further reading” Some time needs to be spent fixing the references. If you have a link to an article, you can add that to make it easy for someone to check your source. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2021363 is an example of a source you used that is a primary source, which should not be used. It directly references its own research. Goc cimane (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Goc cimane

Response:

I agree that in the introduction there are complex words and we are either going to change the wording to a simpler one or add hyperlinks if necessary.

We are adding hyperlink to anarthria and other uncommon terms as well

We will take a look at the different types and make sure to make it clear why they are separate categories.

That is a good point of changing the name to epilepsy induced rather than reversible form. We put reversible form as the title because its the only type of causation that has shown to end up without symptoms after treatment.

We will change that in the neuropathology part.

We'll consider explaining the rarities, thanks

Management: hyperlink MRI and CT I agree

Imaging: We'll consider to have them in bullet points hyperlinked instead of subtitles

Diagnosis: We're referring to the disease as bilateral operculum throughout all the page.

Techniques: Yes each could be oriented towards the disease

Footnotes: We are labeling footnotes as references thanks

References: Good idea

We scheduled a meeting with the professor in order to discuss our sources. We didn't have enough sources about this disease and we've been struggling on finding good secondary sources.

Thanks for your help!

Sourcing and citations; language

Formatting of citations was horrible. Selection of references is bad. Way too many primary sources. We will have to almost completely redo this.

This is not written in plain English. We will have to almost completely rewrite with respect to that as well. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

- Lead paragraph is very scientific; a more colloquial introduction may grab readers interest more

- Need to define some terms like “anathria”

- I like that you acknowledged the many kinds of opercular syndromes but then went into detail about the most common form

- Some parts of the pathophysioogy section would be good in the lead section, particularly where you define what the operculum actually is

- The diagnosis techniques section could be condensed and shortened; it is perhaps more detail than readers need

-Awaldera18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awaldera18 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

→Response:

• We changed the introduction so that it grabs the reader's attention and we also made it less scientific.
• We added hyperlinks and some the medical terms were defined.
• We went into more detail about bilateral opercular syndrome because it is the most common form and most of the literature is based on this form. However, we tried to be more specific so that it is less confusing.
• We deleted irrelevant sentences.

Thanks for your contribution! 0475ramosk (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Katherine Ramos Delgado

Secondary Review

The summary paragraph is very informative, but very scientific, try to see if you could make it more simple for someone who doesn't have a scientific background. In the summary paragraph, you should link words such as " "thrombotic" and "embolic stroke". In the classification section, you could define and link words such as "anarthria". This can also be done in a few other sections, along with the article as a whole can be re-read a few times to fix run-on sentences, along with some of the grammar. Overall, you were able to include a lot of information and I liked the pictures you included in this article.HarshPatel1 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Harsh P.

→Response: We added more hyperlinks and definitions were added as well so that the article would be easier to understand. Also, we reread some sections and fixed the grammatical errors. Finally, we tried to make the article less scientific so that people without a scientific/medical background are able to understand the article. Thanks for your help! 0475ramosk (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Katherine Ramos Delgado

Student Primary Review

Well written
Lead paragraph:
When referring to the French origin of the disorder, I would recommend procinding the French translation for which the abbreviation comes from to provide a little more context. You also include many scientific terms here without prodiving either links (to other articles, etc), or explainations for these terms (including: neuropathological disorder, lingual, pharyngeal, and masticatory muscles, thrombotic strokes, embolic strokes, ischemic, various brain regions, etc). Additionally, There are minor grammatical erros in the final sentence of this paragraph.
Classification:
In my opinion, beginning an article with words or phrases that do not convey affirmation of the topic are usually read with an air of skepticism. I would consider rewording the first sentence to remove the word “reportedly”. Additionally, by defining there to be “two main forms” of the syndrome and then further dividing the categories into anterior and posterior sections, seems like there are in fact four forms, perhaps remove the “anterior and posterior” portions from this setence and add an additional sentence after it to clarify that both forms can exist in anterior and posterior categories as well. Again, this section is very technical and may not be appropriate for all audiences, consider rewording and explaining the topics presented to ensure that a wider audience can be reached. Lastly, avoid qualifiers such as “very” - provide numbers supporting claims when possible (eg. “very rare”).
Symptoms:
The sentence “A person with bilateral opercular syndrome has disabilities with voluntary movements of the facial, lingual, pharyngeal and masticatory muscles.” does not seem to flow well and could be reworded. The same goes for this sentence: “Common symptoms include drooling of saliva, inability to elevate and depress mandible, difficulty chewing, incapable of protrusion of tongue, no voluntary swallow, and loss of speech.”. The second paragraph seems to contain redundant information as well. Grammatical erros occur in this sentence and the first sentence of the third paragraph of this section. Causes:
Maintain consistant capitilization of sub-heading titles in this section Central nervous system infection: There appears to be some wording issues or words missing in the first sentence of this section. Unusual causes – refer to the use of lists in Wikipedia articles; consider converting this information into prose. Pathophysiology This is again a very technically written section, inappropriate for the audience. Additionally, you introduce yet another term for bilateral operacular syndrome. Each of these terms should be proposed in the lead paragraph. The sentences “The cranial nerves that are impaired are the following.”, “The anatomic basis for the automatic voluntary dissociation is characterized by the following.”, and “The following discoveries have been reported in literature.” should end with a colon instead of a period. Lastly, the numbered list at the end of the neuropathology section seems out of place. Consider editing the previous sentence to better incorperate this list.
Management:
Do not use abreviations (eg. MRIs, CT scans) without defining the term first. Additionally, the sentence in which these appear should be reworded as it is not clear the way it is currently written. Missing commas in the Neurosurgery sub-section, spelling errors in the Imaging sub-section, also reword the last sentence so that the tense does not change throughout it. In the Magnetic resonance imaging sub-section, remove the word “best” or use data supporting this claim. The first sentence in this section also should be reworded slightly as its style does not seem to follow the previous sections (technical writing). CT Scan see above comment, reword “one of the most”. Citations needed for the second sentence.
Diagnosis:
The lead sentence in the second paragraph reads strangly because of comma placement. Automatic-voluntary dissociation assessment - spelling error in the final sentence. Psycholinguistic testing - Are there Wikipedia articles explaining “the Dutch version of Aachen aphasia test, syntactic comprehension test, and the Token test”? If so, link to them to provide more clarity in what these tests are looking for and what the results of them mean with regards to diagnosis of this disorder. Additionally, the word choice in the last sentence of this paragraph does not seem to follow the rest of the article style (technical writing). Neuropsychological testing - see comments above regarding tests (WAIS-III, Stroop test, Bourdon Wiersma test, and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test). Brain scanning - keep tenses the same in the last sentence. Treatment:
This is the first time you’ve referred to the disorder as the “Foix–Chavany–Marie syndrome” or “SFMC” since the lead paragraph. Be consistant throughout your article. History:
See above comment. Again, this is a very scientifically written section, consider your audience. The wording in the first paragraph regarding the French Physicians also seems to be a bit off. Consider clarifying these sentences. In the second paragraphs, you link to the “infarcts” article as well as define the word however, this is not the first time this word is used in your article, consider moving this link and definition to the first instance of the word instead.
Other general comments:
I find it kind of odd that the title of the article is “Foix-Chavany-Marie syndrome” yet you do not refer to it as such throughout the article. Consider changing the name of the article. Additionally, as as pointed out in the individual sections, this is a very technically written document. Some work needs to be done to ensure that a general audience without scientific background can understand it. It is also my understanding that, in articles, contractions (such as “it’s” should be avoided). Lastly, you switch back and forth between “person” and “patient” - perhaps look into using one or the other.

Verifiable/Broad
Regarding the Footnotes, there appear to be multiple sources that were “invoked but never defined”. This should be fixed during the next edit of the article. Additionally, with regards to the article being broad in its coverage, I feel that this article oftentimes goes into too much detail and does not remain focused on the topic presented, especially in the history section.

Neutral
This article remains neutral and does not appear to have any bias.

Illustrated
The article is illustrated with beneficial images, especially those concerning the operculum, types, and symptoms of bilateral opercular syndrome. Each image is tagged and relevant. 'Verified source' Reviewing your 16th citation, it appears as if this article only talks about investigations using fMRI concerning cerebral reorginization and does not present the list you cited in your article or the tests mentioned. Was the correct source cited here?

Final comments
Well presented topic and very well researched. You seem to have covered a large amount of information well suited to an academic topic however may have gone a little “above and beyond” in this case considering the audience of Wikipedia. With some minor editing, I feel that this article can be modified to not only provide this overview to a more general audience but also presents a complex topic to readers serious about learning more about the topic. Well done. Congrats on the C-class as well!
Breezyjo1223 (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for your feedback. Our group plans to take your comments into consideration and make appropriate changes in the article. We will work on improving grammar/punctuation, adding external links, and edit the article so that a general audience can understand the it better. Fflorendo 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review

All of the previous reviews state things that I noticed throughout the article, so there's not much more to add. If I had to say one thing, it would be that this article covers this topic well, but as stated by others, the flow of the article is disrupted by several grammatical errors.Houstonwehaveaprob (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for your feedback! Our group will work towards having a more unified writing style, and also fix grammatical errors. Fflorendo 21:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fflorendo (talk • contribs)

Student Primary Review

-There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the article. Some sentences have a lot of scientific lingo, which is not appropriate for the general public. In the lead paragraph the word patient is used. According to Wikipedia the word patient is not allowed, maybe change it to “Treatment is specific to…” Add links to topics that readers may not know (ex. thrombotic, embolic) early in the article rather than later under causes. I really like the figures. I find the figure with the Operculum (brain) very useful when I was reading the lead paragraph.

-Under classification add a link to “anarthria”. I liked how bullet points were used to list the 5 types that fall into both bilateral and unilateral.

-Under the bilateral heading “area” is repeated twice. Under symptoms some sentences are awkwardly phrased. Again, “patient” is used a couple of times, maybe say individuals instead of patients. I really like how links were incorporated into this section of the article. I found them very useful in understanding the information presented. The symptoms comparisons were very useful, but there is no footnote to reference back to where the information was found.

-Central nervous system infection uses the word patient. Here is a possible edit, “numerous lesions in individuals with AIDS…”

-Under reversible form add a link to Epilepsy. The word patient is used again. Change this to individuals or people.

-For pathophysiology add a colon to the following sentence, “The cranial nerves that are impaired are the following: Cranial Nerves V.” I suggest adding a colon because you begin to list the cranial nerves.

-I suggest breaking down the second sentence under neuropathology because it is very lengthy and thick with anatomical terms. The word gyrus was linked twice to an outside reference. I think linking it once would suffice.

-Under anatomopathology use a different word for patients.

-In management add links to MRI’s and CT Scans. Under imaging add a link to SPECT. This will make it easier for readers to learn more of these imaging techniques. In this imaging section change “helpe” to helps. In the techniques section add a link to electroencephalography (EEG).

-Under diagnosis patient is used throughout the paragraph. Again, change this to persons, individuals, people, etc. Don’t forget to add links to unfamiliar terms (ex. Psycholinguistics). The links can be to Wikipedia or other external credible websites.

-In regards to verifiable a lot of your references say “Cite Error”, try using the cite tool on Wikipedia. These cite tool will generate your references for you. Also, your references should not be under footnotes; they should be under references. The article I researched is the article written by Christen HJ. Et.al (Reference number 25) This article is a secondary source. It includes information about underlying symptoms of FCMS. This information is already included in the article, but a different reference is used. It does show imaging techniques as stated in the article.

-This is a great article that covers the proposed goal; it is very informative and the figures used were very helpful in understanding the differences between the types of Opercular syndrome. The article is well organized and includes many details. Like I said earlier there are some grammatical errors that can be fixed by re-reading the article. Some sentences are very lengthy maybe try shortening them. Also, are you allowed to change the title of the article of Foix-Chavany-Marie Syndrome to Bilateral opercular syndrome? It would make much more sense if you were allowed to, since you referenced the syndrome as Bilateral opercular syndrome throughout the article. The article is not biased, which is great. MMstudentMU (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

→Response

• All of the grammatical errors were fixed and we took into consideration your suggestions, such as avoiding the use of the word 'patient' or having run-on sentences. Moreover, we tried to make the article less scientific by using less technical terminology in order for the readers to be able to understand it.
• For the 'Classification' section, and for the rest of the section, we added more definitions and hyperlinks.
• Under 'Symptoms' we added the medical references that were missing.
• Links were also added for the MRI, CT Scan, and SPECT sub sections.
• Originally, we did not have our references under footnotes; one of the editors added the 'footnotes' section. We already fixed this and used the correct format for the references. Also, we fixed the problem with the secondary source.

Thanks for your help! 0475ramosk (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Katherine Ramos Delgado

Mostly unsourced

Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN, do not restore without finding reliable sources per WP:MEDRS, checking the content against the source(s), and citing them

Anatomopathology

Diverse anatomical findings have been reported of patients with the bilateral opercular syndrome. These anatomopathological examinations serve to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanism of this syndrome. The following discoveries have been reported in literature.

• Neck vessels exhibiting arteriosclerosis.
• The horizontal portion of the right Sylvian fissure is on occasion shorter.
• Ischemic infarctions are common and usually present.
• Demyelinization is also observed.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Secondary Review--Foix-Chavany-Marie Syndrome

Please clarify the introduction, specifically when describing the effects of a stoke. Not all strokes induce ischemic changes, you can have a hemorrhagic stroke. A hyperlink for congenital defect would help, and I would consider adding hyperlinks for other terms in the first half of the page. Also, is there a reason for only describing two of the 5 classifications? Unilateral anterior syndrome is very rare, so I would suggest picking out the most common and going into more depth on those. There are quite a few grammatical errors throughout the article, I would considering reviewing it for errors. There are also some poorly worded phrases here and there, but no major fixes I saw that were necessary. Otherwise, the article is very detailed and well written. You covered a broad range of material on the tpic, and most of the information was thorough and straight forward. Cwall511 (talk)

We appreciate your input User talk:Cwall511

We do agree that there are some grammatical sentence structure errors that will be revised. The description strokes will be modified and added the other classification that were mentioned will be described.

Thanks again SewellBio (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review

Opening paragraph: Concise and good overview. Small note, I do not think it is necessary to say “case studies have shown”. I would link “embolic” and “thrombacic stroke” here in the intro instead of later in Cerebrovascular disease. The pictures you included are very helpful!
Classification: Awkward wording in second and third sentence. I wouldn’t start a sentence with “and”. I feel like you can consolidate the first three sentences in clearer way. Link “anarthria”. I think this paragraph just needs to be cleaned up, there is a lot of awkward wording. I would also keep your formatting the same for the bullet points. In some you put lesion in parentheses and in some you explain it in the sentence.
Bilateral: there should not be a space between “involvement” and the comma. This is a run-on sentence. I would break it up into two sentences.
Unilateral: re-write second sentence. Does not flow well.
Symptoms: This may be nitpicky but, I think “Incapable of protrusion of tongue” should read more like “incapable of protruding tongue”. “Bilateral posterior operculum syndrome has the distinction from the other classifications that in most cases the patient has word deafness, where she or he cannot understand language” – for this sentence you need commas around “in most cases”. In the last paragraph, you need write “which it can sometimes be confused with”.
Causes: In reversible form, the phrase “it’s the only form of cause” doesn’t really work.
Pathophysiology: not much to change here. It might be good to keep your bullet points in the same format. Change the numbered ones to bullets for consistency. In Anatomopathology, you should have a source at the very end.
Management: Under imaging you have a typo – “helpe”. Under MRI, change “that some of the times are missed” to “that are sometimes missed”.
Psycholinguistic testing: You should either explain the different types of tests or link to them.
Neuropsychological testing: Again, explain the differences between the different tests or link to them.
History: It might make sense to move this earlier. Possibly right before classification.
Source review: I don’t think your sources are correctly formatted. You have many “cite errors”. Also, your references appear under “footnotes” when they should appear under “references”. There is no physical link in most of your references to quickly access the articles. I reviewed your first citation (M. Bakar, H.S Kirshner, F. Niaz (1998). "The opercular-subopercular syndrome: four cases with review of the literature". Behavioral Neurology. 11: 97–103.) because it was cited the most. This is a secondary source and it is appropriately sourced. Your wikipedia page is for bilateral opercular syndrome. I think it is unnecessary for you to go into the detail about unilateral syndrome that you did with information from this source.
Overall: There are grammatical errors and it needs a thorough read through to fix awkward sentence structure and phrases. I do not think I was able to include all the sentences that need fixing, just the ones that stood out as very awkward. You use the word patient a lot and I think we were told in class that is not allowed. There are also a lot of sentences that say something along the lines of “studies show” which is not needed. However, I am impressed with the amount of information you were able to include on the subject! I also thought the structure and flow from one section to the next was very good! You did a great job incorporating pictures as well to help with the understanding. Overall, great job! --AMonocle (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

We appreciate your feedback talk!!

There are several grammatical and awkward wording error that will be revised. We will add more links for terms that are less common and scientific. The order of our article will also change to be more cohesive. Some of the references used were cited incorrectly and will be formatted accordingly.

Thanks again!! SewellBio (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Student BOS Secondary Review

There are many grammatical errors throughout the article, including comma and colon use, misspelled words, and fragmented sentences that read awkwardly. In the Intro section, the word 'patient' is used which is not allowed. There needs to be a more objective writing style in the Intro (which is seen in the rest of the article, so that's good). I think there needs to be a few more hyperlinks for some of the terms in the Classification section (ex. anarthria). Some of the hyperlinks used go to relevant sites that explain what the word/condition/etc. is, but for some of the in text hyperlinks (not the listed text, like other rare causes) there should be a small corresponding definition for the reader. I also think the imagining techniques could use hyperlinks. I know you've explained them, but for a little extra information, CT, MRI, EEG, and SPECT should be hyperlinked to another page if they can. In the beginning of the article there is some confusion between unilateral and bilateral operculum syndrome. Since the wiki page is only on bilateral operculum syndrome, stray away from too much detail on the unilateral cases. This is mostly seen in the beginning, but there is much text dedicated to unilateral symptoms, etc., and it goes back and forth quite a lot between that and bilateral which is confusing and an excess of information. The History, Diagnosis, and Treatment sections feel out of place. It would make more sense, chronologically, to put History after the Intro, and Diagnosis and Treatment after Causes. Finish with the Pathophysiology and Management sections as these are more supplementary. I really loved the images and graphics used within the article- keep all of those. Finally, there seems to be an issue with the citations. The in-text citations look good, but Wikipedia has red highlighted a majority of your sources. Also, all references are in a section labeled Footnotes. This should read References or Further Reading if not specifically cited within the text. CarElizLup (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We appreciate your input User talk:CarElizLup

We do agree that are some grammatical errors that will be revised. Also, the wording of our article will be revised to be more objective. More hyperlinks will be included and a brief definition will be given for words, which are more scientific. The order of our categories will be rearranged to create a more cohesive article. We appreciate that you loved the images and graphics that were used in the article.

Thanks again SewellBio (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)