Talk:Motor pool (neuroscience)

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Medicine: Neurology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Editing work in early November 2012

Editing page throughout weekend for Society of Neuroscience Wikipedia effort DanielNAraujo (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Well done! I just have a few suggestions -- I think you should consider using the fifth sentence of your introduction first: "A motor pool refers to the collection of individual motor neurons that innervate a single muscle," because it is really clear, and then follow up with the rest of the information about the anatomical terms. I'd also think about using subheadings in your longer sections, such as the "Specialization and Development" section. Also, you can try and include more hyperlinks in your article. Good job! Reedich (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. We will be revising the Introduction according to your suggestions, and we will be adding hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages to our own page. Lastly, we will try to incorporate subheadings, but for some sections this may not be possible: within our sections, the explanations and information provided build upon themselves, and introducing subheadings may cause confusion for readers. But certainly for the sections on "Differentiation and specialization", "Evolution", and "Disease", subheadings would be appropriate and helpful.

Thanks again for the help! sommerro

Peer Review

I felt that this page was overall very complete and informative. Below are a few quick corrections to make:

In the introductory paragraph, the sentence "A motor neuron and all of the muscle fibers that it innervates constitute a motor unit" appears. I would change the verb constitutes to its plural form, constitute.
This sentence mentioned above seems very repetitive with "Such motor units are made up of a single motor neuron and the muscle fibers which it innervates." Maybe try removing one of these sentences.
The sentence, "Though motor neurons are located in the ventral horn of the spinal cord and the brainstem, these neurons innervate skeletal muscle fibers through propagation of action potentials down their axons through ventral roots and cranial nerves and stimulate skeletal muscle fibers at a neuromuscular junction where they synapse with the motor end plate of muscle fibers" seems like a run-on sentence - that can be broken down.
Under the anatomy section, the sentence, "These axons can, in humans, can be as long as one meter" contains the word can twice.
Under the evolution section, the extended quotation, “It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this behaviour yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved throwing and clubbing prowess. This assertion leads to the prediction that the human hand should be adapted for throwing and clubbing… thereby providing an evolutionary explanation for the two unique grips, and the extensive anatomical remodeling of the hand that made them possible" may require special formatting due to its length.
It would helpful to readers to include more links to other wikipedia articles within in your subsections describing function, specialization and development, evolution, and relevance to disease. Some examples include links to Glial cell line–derived neurotrophic factor, programmed cell death, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Spinal muscular atrophy.

If possible, I think that it would also be beneficial to include some type of images on the page.

Good luck with your final edits! Czepielk (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. Your grammatical and structural suggestions are good, and we will incorporate those into the article. Further, we will include more linked Wikipedia articles within the text. Finally, we believe we have found an image that is permissible for use via Wikipedia's Fair Use policy.

Thanks again! sommerro —Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Peer Review

This is a very well written article with few grammatical errors. I thought it was interesting and very structured. There are just a few things I would like to discuss:

Good introduction, concise, everything flows smoothly, and I like the example you use at the end.
The third sentence in the anatomy section is too long; you should split it to make it easier to read/understand.
There are some words you should redirect to other Wikipedia articles, specifically under function, specialization and development, evolution, and relevance to disease: hox factors, glial cell line, ALS.
I found this review on pub med, PMID: 22078502, discussing George Romanes and how he basically discovered motor pools. I think this could be an interesting thing to include in the introduction or before the anatomy section. Motor pools were discovered fairly recently, roughly fifty years ago. There is also a great picture of what motor pools look like in cats and although it may be extremely difficult to put on Wikipedia, it would be really cool.

The research for this article is almost complete. I would look at the pub med review I mentioned above and add a few sentences on Romanes. Overall, this is a great draft and most of the work is done. I look forward to seeing what the final draft will look like. Best, BlakePierce (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input! We will incorporate your advice on the sentence structuring and hyperlinking, and we agree that the article needs a picture: we believe that we have found an image that will satisfy Wikipedia's Fair Use policy.

We initially discussed introducing a "History" section into the article, but we found that the history of the motor pool's discovery would be far too technical for the scope of this review article. We also concluded that this history would not offer much enlightenment -- it essentially reads like a dry anatomical study.

Thank you again for the suggestions! sommerro —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Overall, I found this article logically arranged and easy to read. However, I feel that a few improvements could make it even more informative.

- The section regarding evolution in primates is interesting. However, while primates may be especially well-developed in terms of the motor pool, it is not exclusive to primates. It would be helpful to include something about what other organisms the motor pool and related systems are present in, and a brief description of major evolutionary "milestones" that research has revealed or conjectured.

- Were there "milestones" in research of the motor pool? You shouldn't have to list every single one humanly possible, but a few key ones might give a reader an idea of what attracted interest to the motor pool concept.

- A visual of some sort would be a helpful addition to the text

Great progress! Marko Tkach (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input!

As far as the evolution of the motor pool is concerned, we merely wanted to highlight a few interesting and well-researched/thoroughly-discussed examples in order to contextualize the significance of motor pool density as it relates to the precision of motor control; certainly, it would be possible to embark on a much larger analysis of comparative anatomical studies regarding the motor pool, but such an analysis is beyond the scope of this review. Further, our research did not reveal any secondary review sources that described the type of large-scale anatomical analysis that you're looking for.

We discovered a small amount of information on the history of the motor pool discovery, but we found that it was far too technical for this review, and offered little in terms of real understanding.

Lastly, we agree that the article needs a visual, and we have discovered a specific image that we believe is permissible for use under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy.

Thanks again for the helpful commentary! sommerro

Peer Review

Hey guys, great job on your article! I thought it was well organized, informative, and easy to understand. I thought the discussion on the evolution of motor pools was especially interesting. As mentioned earlier, I think it would be beneficial to add some details on the labs and/or experiments that contributed to the discovery of this system. Also, adding some pictures or diagrams could be helpful in visualizing how the motor neurons are arranged. Other than that, I think you guys should work on linking some of the vocabulary used in this article with other existing Wikipedia articles. I found myself feeling a little overwhelmed with terms that I was not familiar with, so linking these terms would make your article more comprehensive. Overall, excellent work! Clarahkim14 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input! We will incorporate your advice on the sentence structuring and hyperlinking, and we agree that the article needs a picture: we believe that we have found an image that will satisfy Wikipedia's Fair Use policy.

We initially discussed introducing a "History" section into the article, but we found that the history of the motor pool's discovery would be far too technical for the scope of this review article. We also concluded that this history would not offer much enlightenment.

Thank you again for the suggestions! sommerro —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Overall, I think you guys did a great job with the article. The information you included was well chosen and I could follow the main points in each section- most importantly, I had a good understanding of the big picture (relative importance) at the end. I think you should start out the article with a clear sentence about what a motor pool is, as opposed to what it “represents”. (You may want to just swap some sentences around, and put “A motor pool refers to the collection of individual motor neurons that innervate a single muscle” at the beginning). You should definitely link more terms and names to other Wikipedia pages. The “Specialization and Development” section confused me at first because it started getting really specific about types of motor neurons and I felt a little lost from the main ‘motor pool’ idea. Perhaps you might want to tie this better into ‘motor pools’ or at least explain how motor pool development is dependent on the individual neurons so that the section flows and fits into the overall article better. Would it work if you were to include a separate section describing individual motor neurons, and then relate that to motor pools? Here is a picture (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107081654.htm) that you may want to include and explain in the article,. Financ (talk)

Thank you for the input! We will incorporate your advice on the sentence structuring and hyperlinking, and we agree that the article needs a picture: we believe that we have found an image that will satisfy Wikipedia's Fair Use policy.

In the "Specialization and Development" section, the classes of motor neurons that we refer to are clearly defined and explained in the "Function" section, and we even reiterate their full names and functions in the "Specialization and Development" section itself. It is impossible to discuss motor pool specialization without at least mentioning the different types of motor neurons. As for a full-length analysis of the different types of motor neurons, two full-length articles already exists on Wikipedia for this very purpose, and that in-depth information belongs exclusively on the motor neuron and motor unit pages.

Thank you again for the suggestions! sommerro —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi guys, Well done. Here are my few critiques to your article:

- The Physiological basis of the size principle was, I thought, not entirely clear within the function section. Perhaps the explanation that is included later, in the "Development" section should be moved.

- Also, I think there needs to be more of a description of the differences between the subclasses of neurons (FF, FR, S) within the Function section.

-In the "Disease" section I think your article would benefit from a description of the differences and defining characteristics of ALS and SMA.

kendalse (talk)12:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input.

We agree with your suggestions on all three points:

1. The size principle is indeed more fully explained in the "Development" section, and we should integrate this lengthier explanation into the "Function" section instead.

2. We should include a slightly more developed explanation of the different subclasses of motor neurons in the "Function" section; however, this article is on the motor pool, and not the Motor unit or motor neuron, so we do not want to cover these differences too extensively -- it would not be appropriate for the specific topic of our review.

3. We should include brief explanations of the diseases we discuss in that section to provide a better context for their relevance to motor pools.

Thanks a lot for your helpful input! sommerro —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Peer Review

Hello all:

We have responded to each peer review individually; these responses have been edited into each "peer review" subsection to address every individual point. These responses follow each review and are bolded.

Thanks again sommerro —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation?

I know for a fact that "motor pool" is also a term (originally a military one) referring to the group of vehicles used by an organizational unit. I don't see an article for this, despite the military/organizational use of the word being far more common than the anatomical/biological/medical use described here.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request with "Motor pool" redirected to Motorpool. Preferences for alternative disambiguations based on meticulous letter counting can be carried out separately. Favonian (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motor pool → Motor pool (neuroscience) – To avoid WP:SURPRISE, since this topic does not seem to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "motor pool". To most people, I suspect that a motor pool is a group of automotive vehicles used as a shared resource by a larger group of people (or perhaps (snark warning) a secret conspiracy to change the weather in Vietnam). Please see prior comment at Talk:Motor pool#Disambiguation?. Please also see the edits I have just done at Motorpool. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the rationale behind the move, I'm unclear on what will happen to the base page. If it just redirects to the disambiguated title, there really isn't a reason to move the page. -- Calidum 23:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should redirect to the new dab page at Motorpool, or perhaps that dab page should be moved to Motor pool. Sorry for not saying that explicitly. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. Support per nom then. -- Calidum 01:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BarrelProof -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BarrelProof , well spotted In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. To me, and I'm sure many others, a "motor pool" is primarily a US military transport unit as run by Sergeant Bilko (and I'm not even American). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support so long as Motor pool doesn't redirect there. Red Slash 21:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for recognizability as the average reader would not anticipate Motor pool to be about a collection of neurons. I think the current name goes beyond a reasonable level of WP:SURPRISE. However the disambiguation would need to be altered in my opinion. It should be "neuromuscular physiology" rather than neuroscience. Mbcap (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the suggested alternative disambiguator. Or perhaps just "(physiology)" or "(anatomy)", which would be more concise. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right, the more concise disambiguator is better. I am not sure if it should be physiology or anatomy as the article contains both. I shall leave it for yourself to decide. Mbcap (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to wait and hear what others think at this point. I don't have any expertise on the subject matter. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.