Talk:Monoplegia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 5641heatwoe, Tsenft7, SSneurobiology.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi all •whomever that may be• I’m pretty new to the back end of Wiki, but thought to share some of what I know-I am a consumer, after all.

I’m writing because there is a Category missing from the entries on Monoplegia: paralysis-monoplegia due to accident or surgical interference or impact injury or trauma or... A specific example (and one I suffered from after a fall following a seizure five+ years ago) is compartment syndrome, which required an emergency fasciiotomy to relieve. It’s a complicated, ugly story with many complications, but the main point I wanted to convey is--well, I did so. I don´t know if this is the right place to do so, but hopefully the person in charge will move it to the right place if I was mistaken.

Cheers, JoeRose50JoeRose50 11:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)11:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

{[sofixit}} WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Article Review

Hello, overall I thought this article was very informative and well written, I'd just suggest linking some terms (like Brown Sequard Syndrome and some of the brain regions) to their own wiki pages. Wheatona22 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Our group went through and tried to add more links to as many terms as possible, specifically the ones you mentioned. Hopefully this will help increase the clarity of our article. 5641heatwoe (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Article Review

Hello, I thought that the lead paragraph was confusing to read, be specific when using “it” in the first paragraph 4th sentence. For the paragraph under Signs and Symptoms include citations. I really liked the incorporation of links throughout the webpage. MMstudentMU (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC) --Thanks for pointing out the confusion in the lead paragraph, we tired to clarify it.Tsenft7 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Your article presents the information well, especially with the links being used to point the reader to descriptions/more information about the connected topics. The diagnosis section could use a little more clarification, such as what an evaluation of the functional level of the corticospinal tract is. Shelly870 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC) --Thank you for your feedback, we tried to add more details to the diagnosis section in order to make it clearer.Tsenft7 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The main, important aspects of this topic were covered efficiently. This article is well written with good presentation of the information. A few more term links could be added, as well as at least one reference for the the lead and "Signs and Symptoms" subtopic. Wagnerb95 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. We will try to link all the terms and add more reference as well. However, it was extremely hard to find secondary articles for monoplegia since it is not very common. SSneurobiology (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hey guys! Great work. I thought your information was all very thorough and well organized. The article flowed nicely and in a way that made a lot of sense. I learned a lot and like how things were explained simplistically. There were a few grammar errors but other than that great job.George baldas (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We have gone through and tried to edit and correct any outstanding grammar errors. 5641heatwoe (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review

Great article! I do have a few suggestions and comments, however:

1. This is a well-written article, clearly written and concise. You may want to go through and expand on some sentences, for instance, in the “Signs and symptoms” and “Diagnosis” sections. Also, as a side note, “Signs and Symptoms” should have sentence capitalization —> “Signs and symptoms”

2. Your information all seemed to be good secondary sources, but I would include more information in the “Diagnosis” section if you can, I think that section might need more information/explanation.

3. I think overall this article covered enough aspects of the topic, I would, however, have liked to see more information about cerebral palsy and its relation to monoplegia.

4. This article had good third person grammar and neutral voice was very clear and did not include original opinion.

5. I do think you could use more images. An image of the different areas of the brain in the “Mechanism” section might be helpful.

Overall, well done, this was a very good article.

Maribio97 (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback!

1. We have gone through and edited the "Signs and symptoms" subtopic. We had taken most of this from the previous article on monoplegia, so we just decided to rewrite this with our own words from a secondary source. We also added more to the "Diagnosis" section, specifically trying to add more explanation to the information that was there.

2. We added more information from our secondary sources to the "Diagnosis" section for both of the methods of diagnosis mentioned.

3. Our group added information about specifically how cerebral palsy relates to monoplegia from a secondary source that we had not originally used in our article.

4. Thank you.

5. Our group has added an image to the "Mechanism" section of this article to hopefully aid in the understanding of the areas affected by monoplegia. Other than this, however, we were not able to find images that would enhance or be relevant to this article.

5641heatwoe (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Good Work, this article was very well written and straight to the point. I give you credit for accurately and fully describing each treatment method without supporting one or the other through a personal bias. Your first source was heavily relied on in this article and although it is a good up to date secondary source, possibly finding another source could prove beneficial. JaminB (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We realize that we did rely heavily on the first source in the "causes" subtopic, but there were limited review articles relating to our topic. Thus, we did our best with what we could find and were not able to find any other review sources that covered the causes of monoplegia. 5641heatwoe (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hi classmates! Overall, I feel that your article was very well written and organized. I felt that you touched on all of the topics that would be associated with monoplegia while keeping it structured. I looked at a few of your sources and they appear to be very reliable secondary sources. Specifically, the source I thoroughly read through was "Diagnosis of Nonorganic Monoplegia With Single-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation." While I like that you used a case study to gather information for your article, I think you should find additional sources and could get into more detail and expand on a few of the topics, such as "Signs and Symptoms" and "Diagnosis." There was no source listed under your "Signs and Symptoms" topic and including one or finding another source for this would further strengthen your article. The article was neutral and was not opinionated, however, again it could be more informative. I also suggest that you add images to your article. Maybe under the "Mechanisms" topic you could add an image of the areas of the brain monoplegia affects. I like the links that you have included. It seems like you put a lot of thought and research into it, well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britaanna (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. The reason we didn't have a source listed under the "sign and symptoms" section because we used content from the previous Wikipedia content, and we were not able to locate the sources for that section. So we will try to find a secondary source and re-write that section. In addition to that, we will try to cite more secondary sources and make the page more informative. However, it extremely hard to find secondary sources because monoplegia is a very rare form of paralysis. In addition to that, the cited case study was the only article we found that specifically labeled the diagnostic of monoplegia. SSneurobiology (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hi guys! In general, I thought your article was fairly informative on the overall topic of monoplegia. It was well written and concise enough to understand the general idea of the topic. I just have a few suggestions:

1. Under the "Signs and Symptoms" topic, the last part of the second sentence seems a little repetitive, I suggest deleting the very first sentence ("There are a number of symptoms associated with monoplegia.") in this section to allow the rest of the sentences to flow nicely together.

2. I looked over all of your sources and they all seem great and reliable so great job with finding those! I specifically read through the article, "Constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremities in people with stroke" and found that at the bottom of this article, there was a link to the updated version of the study. The updated version concluded that months after going through this type of treatment, there was no evidence of persisting benefit. Perhaps you could use some of the data and conclusions from this article, and use it as another source in your page.

3. In the "Mechanism" section, it would be helpful to provide some images of these areas of the brain as a visual aid, along with more hyperlinks to each section of the brain that you listed for more information on those areas if possible!

4. If you could find more reliable sources to use and expand a little bit more in the "Diagnosis" topic, that would help to further explain how monoplegia is typically diagnosed.

Overall, great flow and organization throughout the entire article! Just a few minor additions and changes may be beneficial. Nc801 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback!

1. We have taken out this paragraph that we had originally kept from the previous article on monoplegia. Instead, we added another source and wrote our own "Signs and symptoms" section that is hopefully more clear and informative.

2. Our group went back and looked at the results offered by this updated article and added a couple sentences reflecting these findings. Like much of the treatment options for monoplegia, this form of therapy has its limitations. We added a mention of these and added that this is an area where more research would be needed in order to fully understand the benefits of this treatment.

3. We have added an image of the brain areas that are affected by monoplegia that will hopefully add to the clarity of this section. We also added as many links as we could to the areas of the brain, and throughout the article as a whole.

4. We added one secondary source to this section and tried to use more to expand from the source we already had. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of secondary sources on monoplegia, so we just tried to get as much information as we could from what we had.

5641heatwoe (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of "Assessment of Upper Extremity Impairment, Function, and Activity Following Stroke: Foundations for Clinical Decision Making"

Hello! I looked through this source and it is in fact a medical review, although I did find a figure or two that included original research by the writers. It seems that you only really used the abstract and opening paragraph, but considering that you used the information accurately based on what was written in the review, I think your information in the “Mechanism” section is appropriate. I think you could cite this article more often in the section, however, because I found several sentences that contained information from this article that was not cited.

Maribio97 (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)