Talk:Motor nerve

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): Hannah neuro, Ktd22, JBujko.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Motor nerve or motor neuron?

The image shows a neuron, but the article discusses a nerve. Secondly, there's really no such thing as a nerve that carries exclusively somatomotor/branchiomotor fibers. There will almost always be some autonomics or sensory fibers in there too. --David Iberri (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

RenameMerge to Motor neuron. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary Review I

Introduction

This paragraph could use some rephrasing. It was already mentioned that motor nerves carry information from the CNS to the body. There is no need to state that again in a separate sentence when explaining efferent nerves.

Structure and function

Most of this paragraph should be expanded upon- possibly creating another section to do so. Transduction, ACh (be sure to mention that this is acetylcholine before abbreviating), Calcium, and EPPs would be great topics to cover with more detailed information. The sentence "as they are heavily involved in muscle control" is not needed and is a repeat of information mentioned multiple times thus far.

Protective tissues

Explain the purpose of all of these tissues even though it is implied in the title of this section. What are these creating protection from?

Spinal cord exit

This entire section could be rewritten to reduce confusion. Contralateral means opposite side, not same side.

Motor neuron nerve types

This title should be changed with the word "nerve" being removed. The explanation of a motor neuron should be moved here instead of in the "Spinal cord exit" section. Beta should be listed before gamma. There should be references listed in the following sections.

Alpha

Extrafusal muscle fibers are mentioned twice. An explanation of conduction velocity would be beneficial here.

Gamma

These are not involved directly in muscle contraction. They are associated with intrafusal muscle fibers which do not contribute to contraction. They contribute to proprioception as discussed in class. An accurate description of these should replace the information that is currently listed. "Signalling" is spelled incorrectly.

Beta

This first sentence is not an actual sentence. What was meant to be conveyed here?

Neuroregeneration

Neurodegeneration should be explained before getting into neuroregeneration. This would be a good topic to expand upon in an additional section. The phrase "cannon simply be made" should be rephrased to maintain neutrality. Explain the outside environment and go into detail on what role this plays. Explain neural stem cells. "Assists" should be changed to assist. Explain schwann cells and how these are related to motor neurons. References should be listed after the sentences containing the information pulled from the source rather than after the entire paragraph.

Source #5 Review

This source is from the "Textbook of medical physiology". Finding an online source that contains this information will allow readers to access this source's information. Can this book be accessed online? If this is possible, recreate the citation with a link to the online book. What pages did you pull information from? I cannot verify that any of the information cited in the article was actually found from this source.

Overall Review

This article needs a lot of revision and can easily be fixed. There are grammatical errors and poor sentence structure. Pictures should be added to this article, possibly a diagram of a typical motor nerve. There is a lot of information that was not explained accurately. Re-reading your sources or getting different sources may clear up this confusion. There is little detail in any of the sections leading to poor information coverage on motor nerves. An overall expansion on the material and creating additional sections would be very beneficial. I suggest going section by section and cleaning up the sentences to increase clarity. Make sure to differentiate a motor neuron and a motor nerve and maintain that distinction throughout the article. The goal of this article is not listed on this talk page. This is necessary to understand the article as a whole and should be added as soon as possible. I am more than willing to help clarify anything I have written in this review. Please contact me if desired. DrakeS (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review

Thank you so much for reading and reviewing our page. Your comments were very helpful in making our article better. We cleaned up our grammatical errors and restructured sentences to enhance clarity. We expanded upon the sections that you said needed more explanations. We also added a section on degeneration and added more pictures as you suggested. The book we used was not online but it is linked to cite where you can buy it so that shows that it is real. We tried to keep the article concise while having a lot of links to other pages so the readers could get more information there. Thank you for your review!

Primary Review II

Great start! Nice structure and content, it just needs to be fleshed out and grammer and sentence structure need to be reviewed so it is less confusing. Pictures would be helpful to help illustrate mechanisms and different anatomical locations.

Introduction

More specific details need to be in the first paragraph because it is vague and hard to follow. For example when you mention "information" what type (ie descsending, ascending etc.)? When information "goes out" of the CNS a destination would be helpful to specify. Sentence structure is very casual. For example "opposite of" could be changed to flow better. State location of mixed nerve in relation to other nerve pathways. There is no context to previous pathways which makes this confusing.

Structure and Function

In the first sentence where you say “in proximity of muscle tissue” do you mean proximal muscle tissue? What happens after EPP’s? I personally know what happens but I’m assuming most people don’t. Please finish explaining this mechanism.

Spinal Cord Exit

Where do the rest of motor pathways originate from? I’m sure other people would be curious to know as well. By definition, “contralateral” means on the opposite side so the whole second sentence needs to be rephrased to eliminate confusion.

Motor Neuron Nerve Types

The title is confusing because nerves axons bundled together create a nerve. Possibly rename to just “Motor Neuron Types” and then in the subtitles specify what each neuron type is. For example "Alpha Motor Neuron" because just "alpha" could be a label for many things. In the Gamma subsection, it is confusing how Gamma neurons are different than alpha neurons. Please rephrase and clearly differentiate between motor and gamma neurons.

Neuroregeneration

When reading the title "Neuroregeneration" it is really easy to miss the “re”, so maybe simplify occasionally so that an average person can understand more easily. Please name a few of the reasons neuroregeneration is restricted. Schwann Cells are only limited to the peripheral nervous system, I think this specific location is important to specify when talking about nervous system regeneration (I noticed later it is in your chart but it isn't very convenient to scroll between frequently so writing it out would be handy). There isn’t much to talk about for neuroregeneration, so it may be interesting to expand this section and also talk about neurodegeneration and when motor nerves don’t work properly.

Source 2

I read the second source and can verify it is a secondary source. This source is cited in the introductory paragraph once. Your article cites source 2 in relation to mixed nerves but the the source doesn’t talk directly about mixed nerves so another source should be cited for mixed nerves. This article would be helpful if you elaborate on the neuromuscular junction and/or on neurodegeneration. There is a lot of useful information that could be cited to fill in what you currently have as well as pictures from this source that would make reading this article easier to understand and more interesting.

Chart

The chart is very useful on the bottom. I know for several parts, such as the connective tissues, you explain the topics above in your article but it would be nice if you could briefly write out parts of the chart. For example, explain how different anatomical structures relate and what their function is for someone who isn’t familiar with the nervous system structure. With some sentence revisions, images, and some additional explanations and clarifications I think this article will be all set to go. Please let me know if you have any questions. Emmett121 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review II

Thank you for all of your feedback. It was helpful to know where we needed to clarify and be more specific with our information. Thank you for also pointing out how we could simplify the neuroregeneration section as this was helpful in fixing our information. I'm glad that you noted that you looked at the secondary source and that you found that it had useful information. We also made sure to add pictures to make the page look a little more involved! Thank you again.

Primary Review III

For the introduction to motor nerves, the link to the mixed nerves should be deleted because Wikipedia does not have a mixed nerve article for viewers to be directed to. I think you should expand in this section, but so far, it seems like a good summary.

For the structure and function section, I think it could be organized better by separating the topics in two distinct subtopics. For the function, I think it is fine. For the structure of a motor nerve, try to add a picture for the article. I found an image on the Wikipedia Commons.

PSM V26 D754 Motor nerve cells

. If you like it, then use it, or you can draw your own image. The protective tissues topic header doesn’t seem necessary. As I said above, just use structure as a header.

For the spinal cord exit section, I think you could be more specific in what motor neurons are being innervated. I know you talk about the types of motor neurons below, so maybe you can add the motor neuron nerve type section before the spinal cord exit. This way the reader can understand the players of the pathways that is being described in the spinal cord exit section.

For the motor neuron nerve types, I like the organization of the section. References should be added for where the alpha, gamma, and beta information was received from. The information is concise, but I would check the information for the gamma paragraph. It seems to be incorrect. There is no contraction since gamma neurons work for the intrafusal muscle fibers.

For the neuroregeneration section, the internal and external sources can be clarified because I don't think a normal reader would understand what that means. Weak regenerative ability sounds kind of awkward to me, try writing there is weak regeneration instead.

For the references, I looked at reference 7. I can confirm that it is a secondary source. I can see that the reference is used correctly in the neuroregeneration section of the article. Overall, I would say that the article talks too much on the neural stem cells, so I would not recommend finding more information from this article for your topic. Use other articles found in PubMed.

Overall, I think it is a good start. I think you could add more on the details because the article generalizes a lot, and I think you could be more specific to bring out more information and content for motor nerves. For example, add more for the neuroregeneration and the pathways for the spinal cord exit section. --Nelu555 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review III

Thank you for reading and reviewing our article. We took your advice and added a few images on the page so that it is easier to visualize motor nerves. We made some general grammar edits and revisions, so our article should flow better. Thank you for the consideration on reference 7, however it was difficult to find other secondary sources about neuroregeneration. We appreciate all of your advice about making the article more detailed, but we found our topic a bit too narrow with limited research to actually expand on some sections. The problem is that most of the research covers specifically motor neurons but nothing on motor nerves. We also ended up adding more details on neuroregeneration and an entire section on neurodegeneration.

Secondary Review

Hi! Your article was well-written as it was very easy to understand especially with all the tags. The page would just benefit with some pictures but other than that it looks good! Mira pasawala (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to secondary review

Thank you for your feedback! We made sure to add pictures to our final page and agree that the page benefitted from this addition!

Secondary Review II

Hi guys! I liked the chart on the bottom of your article and think that you have mentioned all the topics necessary when describing motor nerves; however, your article needs more detail. First, in line with the first comment in this talk page, you need to firmly establish the difference between a neuron and a nerve. If this were my article, I would define both terms in my lead. In the "protective tissues" section, what is perineurium; what is its function? When discussing gamma neurons, it would be helpful to link or describe the function of muscle spindles. Lastly, as Mira said, some images would be nice. Good luck and let me know if you have questions regarding my comments!

Patrick V1 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to secondary review

We made sure to define the nerve versus the neuron to limit the confusion! We also made sure to try to add more explanation to the small details. We also added pictures! Thank you for your review.

Secondary Review III

Hey guys! Nice article you have here! It was straightforward and simple to read for the most part. In the lead, there appears to be a broken link or a nonexistent page linked. There are a few sentences throughout the article that don't quite make sense; these problems are mostly grammatical issues, namely fragments. The first sentence in the Structure and function section doesn't really make sense and there are a few fragments in the motor neuron nerve types section.

When talking about the high calcium concentration and the size of the EPPs, it would be helpful to specify how the size would change.

The protective tissues section was nicely written and very easy to understand. The formatting of this section is a bit odd thoguh; the bolded subheading makes the section feel like it doesn't belong to the structure and function section.

In the spinal cord exit section, what is the difference between nerves and neurons? Clarifying this would help the average reader understand the section a little better. It sounds a bit redundant otherwise.

Lastly, there are no citations in the motor neuron nerve types section, aside from the first sentence.

I hope this was helpful. Good luck editing! Chadchang2 (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review III Thanks for the read and review on our page. We went through the entire article and fixed the grammatical and syntax errors. We also wanted to clarify the difference in nerves and neurons and we did so in the sections you mentioned. We also ended up adding some new references and references for the neuron nerve types section. Thanks again.

Secondary Review

Good job on your article. I just have a couple of things that could be improved. IN the structure and function section, you should probably say “acetylcholine” instead of ACh and link that, as people might want to look more into that neurotransmitter. Also make a link for “muscle spindles” too. Also, maybe add one or two images to the page of motor neurons or muscle spindles. Other than that, good job. Bkeefer97 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review

Thank you for reading and we appreciate your advice for our page. We added the links that you mentioned and added some images to our page for better visualization of motor nerves. Thank you again.

Secondary Review

The article is descriptive, but could use more substance such as descriptive pictures of the types of nerves. Explaining what is different between nerves and neurons could help the reader. The alpha, beta, and gamma sections need references as well. This Wiki page will not be long, but few more descriptive sentences describing the function of the specific nerves and words such as acetylcholine would help.

NickSchneider (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review

Thank you for reading and reviewing our article. We added more pictures and information to make the article more descriptive and explained the difference between a nerve and a neuron in the lead.

Secondary Review

Hello! Overall, your article looks great! I think I would suggest adding more images and information to the "Protective Tissues" and "Spinal Cord Exit". The information is basic level in these sections, but I think a deeper information can be added. With the section about Neurogeneration, I think you have a good starting point, but more can be added to that as well. Hope this helps! Medford22 (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review

Thank you for considering our article. We added pictures and tried to give more information on those topics while staying focused on our specific topic motor nerve. Thanks!

Secondary Review 5

This is a really informative article very good job on that. However I was a little confused when you started talking about Neuroregeneration because you didn't really incorporate motor nerves into that topic it was just sort of like a side topic. So maybe elaborate on what that has to do with the motor nerve so the reader isn't lost. Otherwise this page is looking pretty good compared to what it was before good work. 0346mannv (User talk:0346mannv) 5:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Secondary Review

Thank you for looking over our article. We added and changed a few things in that section of the paper but still tried to keep in on topic and not delve into too much detail.