Talk:Neuronal loss in temporal lobe epilepsy

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Class Project

Hello everyone, this is my topic and I am looking forward for any feedback and comments =]Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Peer Review

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1

There are a few links where the page does not exist, so check the spelling as well as only capitalization of the first letter of the title only and then the links can regain their accessibility

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - No recent comments
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1

There are some typos that exist throughout the paper, so be aware of that
- One of your links was spelled strtum lucidum, which might be why it says page does not exist
Be aware of the tense that you use
- "Different types and regions of neurons suffered (suffer?) different severity of injuries.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
Great job on the article! There are a few grammatical things to fix within the article as well as maybe you can put some pictures to help make the page more interesting.
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Ladeidramonetroberts (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Peer Review Article Assignment Points

1. Quality of Information: 2
I liked the usage and integration of the research here.
2. Article size: 2
Great job on the size, meets the requirements of the assignment.
3. Readability: 1
I liked it overall, but please add a picture to make it look even better. Sometimes, readers may just want the jist of the article so pics would be helpful for that. But the content was good.
4. Refs:2
Had the number needed for the assignment.
5. Links:2
Had plenty of links going to other pages.
6. Responsive to comments:2
No comments were given.
7. Formatting:2
I liked the flow of the article. Just add some pictures and you will be set.
8. Writing: 1
I noticed a typo like in the last para, "By using animal models and assessment of epileptic patients", after that it would be grammatically correct to say "it is shown that..."
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
Used their real name.
10. Outstanding?:2
It was a good read. Fantastic job!

Total: 18 out of 20

Hifzasakhi (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Quality of Information: 2 - great information and citations!
2. Article size: 2 - fits within range
3. Readability: 1 - good use of headings and sub-headings, but the information could have been arranged more in terms of figures and other types of media like pictures.
4. Refs: 2 - required number of references
5. Links: 1 - had some red links in the assignments - did not seem overlinked or underlinked.
6. Responsive to comments: 2 - this is not really applicable, so full points
7. Formatting: 2 - seemed to flow well. Again, good use of headings and sub-headings.
8. Writing: 1 - could have used more lay-person friendly terms. It sounds reasearchy. Maybe add a section as to what the symptoms are like in patients (for general audience, other than memory).
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2 - good job
10. Outstanding? 2 - outstanding in # or references and quality of summary

Total: 17/20
Jim Schwoebel (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to peer review per talk page: I agree with you regarding red links, but the main reason I gave 1 on links is because inhibitory interneurons. I thought it should be switched to this page: interneurons and instead of redlinking with inhibitory interneurons. On the page interneurons it states that most are inhibitory and kind of would be a better reference than redlinked page in my opinion. Jim Schwoebel (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Given that many neurological disorders include neuronal loss, and there is nothing unusually notable about the loss in temporal lobe epilepsy, I propose merging this page into Temporal lobe epilepsy#Causes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with merging the sites if it brings better good to the audience But mossy fiber sprouting and granule cell dispersion are not that popular in other neurological disorders. They only happened after neuronal loss in temporal lobe epilepsy... Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As I see it, that's actually a good reason for a merge into Temporal lobe epilepsy, rather than into a page about neurological disorders in general, or about neuronal loss in general. If you are receptive to doing this, perhaps you could copy all the content that you would like to maintain, into Temporal lobe epilepsy#Causes. If/when you have done that, I can help with the housekeeping of the merge process. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will do it with 24 hours=] Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have been working on Temporal Lobe Epilepsy and I am receptive to this article merging into a section called "pathophysiology" in the TLE article. Before doing this, I'd like to read some of the references and get a better feel for the science. I would need help with the housekeeping :-) Kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When you are ready, please just leave a comment here, and I'll be happy to help with the technical stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time has passed with no action, so I made this page a redirect, and collapsed the remaining content, in the hope that someone who wants to will make use of the collapsed material to expand the target page. But I think we are past the time for making a merge. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]