Talk:Vestibulospinal tract

Boston College Wikipedia Project

This page is being worked on for a neuroscience Wikipedia improvement project for the Fall 2011 BI481 class at Boston College. The group members for this project are mrfushiman, lorenzes, and sleasmab. Any input on our additions or suggestions for the topic would be much appreciated. Lorenzes (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Fall 2011 semester and our "Wikipedia Project" has ended. Thank you for all the help. We hope this article will be improved more in the future, and we'll help where we can. --Lorenzes (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-peer review

Hey guys, well done with the article. Your organization is spot-on with good articles on Wikipedia and you present a ton of well-researched information. At this point, the only thing you need for the project is a "Current/future research" section. Otherwise, let me know if you have any questions--it looks really great as of now. Stempera (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We realized that we didn't have the research section as a part of it, so now have added it and will continue to work on it. Best --Lorenzes (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 14 (SHH)

It would be good to fix the typo in the title of the citation of footnote 14, "Singaling". Also, SHH is inconsistently typed Shh in several places. Generally, editors on Wikipedia are expected to fix these issues as we encounter them, so as not to increase the burden on others. Thank you for your interest in the encyclopedia. We need good work.

Upon review, I cannot accept footnote 14 as proof that increased amounts of SHH causes the basal plate to form motor neurons. I am flagging the citation as dubious. You need to find another citation to back up your claim. --184.244.85.153 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out and making the corrections of how SHH was typed. We removed that information/citation for now, and currently looking for an alternative source and more accurate way of stating it. Thanks, let us know if you have anymore feedback. --Lorenzes (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Class Peer Review

Peer Review 1

I really enjoyed reading this article. You have a lot of good facts that are pretty well organized with minimal typos. A few suggestions, though. In the main introduction a basic description of the location of the vestibulospinal tract within the context of the spinal cord would be good (so the anterior medial portion of the white matter). In the second paragraph under 'Classification' there is a grammatical error in that there are two fragments that read like they should be connected. Also, the function section seems to be less in depth than the anatomy section, so maybe consider reversing the two? There's also a bit of redundancy between Classification, Anatomy, and Function sections. I really liked the reflexes section, especially because you gave specific examples to help the reader understand the anatomy / neuroscience. You might want to check the spelling of 'vertibral' in the CNS development section. Overall this was a good article that was interesting to read. Just those few suggestions, but the pictures and information you have here are good. It seemed like an appropriate amount of hyperlinks too and there weren't that many places that I felt you could have cited references more. Good job! ~ Meredith Kochmd (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We have reproof read the article to remove the spelling and grammatical errors the best we can. Regarding the order of anatomy and function. Traditionally it appears that the anatomical section comes before the function in most articles. To compensate for this brevity of the function section, we are trying to lengthen it. At the same time, we have removed some of the overlapping material. Again, thanks. If you have any other suggestions let us know. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, after further evaluation we adjusted the format to create less of an overlap by moving function first and incorporating the sub-pathways with function, similar how you recommended. Thanks. --Lorenzes (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

I think that this article contains plenty of solid information! I have a few ideas for improvements. I think the classification section would read clearer with fewer uses of parentheses that break up the flow of the paragraph. Also, you might want to make the main idea of the second paragraph of the classification section more apparent. It contains really good information but not all of the sentences are related to each other. The first half of the paragraph is about the interconnectedness of the systems but the second half is about the difference between the medial and lateral pathways. Additionally, in the function section where you discuss the medial and lateral pathways, some of the anatomy talked about in the previous section is repeated. Also, the CNS development subsection of the development section may be better off directing to a different Wikipedia page that explains it, because it’s not directly related to the Vestibulospinal Tract development which is the next subsection. This would help make your article even more focused. I noticed a few fragments, grammar and spelling errors in your article, for example in the subsection called Sub-pathways in the Intoduction section, it reads: “The vestibulospinal tract is an upper motor neuron tract consists of two sub-pathways.” Your references include five textbooks, which are great secondary sources. Have you checked out PubMed to see if there are any review articles to include as well? I think that could give you a good idea if anything interesting has been going on in the research field about your topic. Good work! -Reedich (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We reworded the classification section to better explain it. To clarify, the section emphasizes how extrapyramidal and pyramidal systems are interconnected but a new classification by means of medial/lateral does not interconnect/overlap, and as a result is a better way to classify. We also elected to keep the general CNS development section (but link to it) as it now precedes a section on the ventral motor neuron development. Thank you, let us know if you have anymore feedback. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

I really enjoyed reading this article! Just a few suggestions: you might want to open your page with an initial, more general explanation of what the vestibulospinal tract is for the reader who has never heard of it before, before getting into what it is a component of, what the fibers do, etc. Also I think the article just needs a little proofreading for spelling errors and capitalizations, for example capitalization of "the vestibulospinal tract" in the "Classification" section and incorrect spelling of "structure" in the "CNS development" section. It might also be helpful to link to a few more Wiki topics for the reader to clarify certain topics that are mentioned in the article. The "Sub-pathways" section is particularly helpful and lays the information out clearly and provides a framework for the rest of the article. I think it is extra helpful for the reader to see the sub-pathways referenced throughout the article. I also think that your article sections cover a broad range of topics relating to the vestibulospinal tract; I especially like the "Reflexes" section because it's very interesting and comprehensive and gave a lot of detailed information. It also seems like you used a wide range of references for your sections. Overall, great work! Ellenmcmahon (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. We broadened and expanded on our lead section per your recommendation. Additionally, we attempted to eliminate the spelling/grammatical errors. Let us know if you have anymore recommendations. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 4

This was probably one of the more interesting articles I read. The article is very organized is very enjoyable to read; I learned so much from this one article! I have a few suggestions for your article which I hope you find to be helpful. You may want to explain what exactly the "vestibulospinal tract" is in the very beginning of the article. If I had no knowledge in the subject of neuroscience or the anatomy of the human brain, I would have trouble understanding exactly what the vestibulospinal tract is. In the section of "Development", the paragraph describing CNS development may be too general for your article. I think it is unnecessary to have in the article since it does not refer specifically to the vestibulospinal tract. Be sure to look through your article for any spelling or grammatical errors, I think I found a few minor errors. Lastly, in the first line of the article, you might want to bold the first "vestibulospinal tract". It seems that all Wikipedia articles bold the first mentioning of the subject it is about. It also helps for readers to be able to clearly see what you are discussing in the article. I found the anatomy section to be really interesting; the image of vestibulospinal tract in the section was a great choice and really helps in the description of the different tracts. I hope these comments helped. Keep up the good work! (Colehawk92 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for the feedback. We broadened and expanded on our lead section. For the development, we thought it was best to leave in general CNS development as it helps get the bigger picture of how ventral motor neurons develop. Thanks. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 5

I actually enjoyed this article because it was particularly interesting and you guys broke the material down well. I immediately got the gist of what the vestibulospinal tract actually does from the introduction but I do wish you elaborated a little more on what you were going to get into in the rest of the article. In general though, I thought it was really clear. The anatomy section I thought was great, and the image really helped me visualize what was going on. You guys also did a great job on hyperlinking within the article itself. There are some grammatical mistakes I found. For example, in tonic labyrinth reflex, you want “increased muscle tone”, not increase muscle tone so just go back and make sure you proofread for those errors. I actually don’t think you really need the subpathways section because you go into it in the anatomy section and you can break it down then. A simple introductory sentence at the beginning of the anatomy section saying that it consists of two subpathways and then going into the anatomy would work. You can then explain the different functions of both pathways in the function section so it doesn’t seem redundant. I hope my comments helped! TheDanKim (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We decided to leave the sub-pathways as is, because it gives a general one sentence statement of what they are. The anatomy and function sections go into more detail about it, and as a result sometimes do overlap but they expand on the information greatly. Let us know if you have more feedback. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To follow up, after further evaluation we adjusted the format to create less of an overlap by moving function first and incorporating the sub-pathways with function. --Lorenzes (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 6

Hey guys. I found your article to be very well organized, with each section containing well-ordered information that followed a logical pattern. What impressed me the most was the way you guys really packed a ton of information into very relatable non-scientific language. Excellent job overall, but there are some things that can be improved. You guys seem to link to a ton of stuff, which is great, but maybe a tiny bit overkill. Also there is a bit of overlapping information. For example you guys don’t need to put “The vestibulospinal tract has two main sections: the medial vestibulospinal tract and the lateral vestibulospinal tract” in the function section immediately after posting that long section about both of those in anatomy. In the development section, perhaps you guys could add a little bit about post-natal development and pathway growth, if information is available. Lastly, you talk about injury and lesions, but need to add a bit about possible treatments. Even adding a link to spinal injury treatments would help. Overall, great job and ill be looking forward to the finished project. Thanks! Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)BCayman1992

Thanks! We are currently in the process of adding on possible treatments and current research. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 7

I agree with everyone above that this is a well put together article. The material can be very dense when talking anatomy and location, but I thought you guys did a good job of being as straightforward with the information as possible. Also the images helped a lot with visualization which is key. I think you guys can keep searching and exploring more articles and sources for more information. Two areas where you might consider expansion is with regard to the hedgehog pathway and damage to the tract. What are the downstream effects of the pathway and how exactly does it control differentiation into the neurons of the vestibulospinal tract or more broadly the ventral horn. Also, there doesn't seem to be much out there in the form of sources regarding specific disorders regarding the VST but maybe you can look into this one: http://www.springerlink.com/content/gr05323361375233/fulltext.pdf. It talks about VST lesions impairing the sacculo-collic reflexes. Lastly, another typo is under the "Function" section. It is a grammar mistake that reads, " It that provides excitatory signals to interneurons..." Overall this is a good article. Keep up the good work. -K. Melnick Melnickk (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We recently expanded on the SHH pathway. Information regarding damage, lesions, and treatments were hard to come by as typically if the VST is damaged another more significant area is also likely damaged. We however are continuing to expand on those sections. So thank you for the article as well. Thanks, let us know if you have any more feedback. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 8

This is a clear and concise article that does a good job of conveying a complex anatomical mechanism. The images play an essential part in allowing you to clearly describe the neuronal linkages. Your article is also particularly strong when it comes to internal wikipedia links, however at times they are a bit excessive, particularly in the Medial Vestibulospinal Tract section. Perhaps eliminate the repeated links of the same The only other area for improvement I can see is that your article lacks a current and future research section. I know this can be difficult to find especially when your dealing with a piece of anatomy and not a disorder or disease but perhaps you could find something on the treatment methods for damage to this system. All in all great work. Good luck with revisions drewmokas (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2011

Thanks! We are currently expanding the current/future research section. Let us know if you have more recommendations. --Lorenzes (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vestibulospinal tract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111109232230/http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu:80/virtualbrain/BrainStem/13VNAN.html to http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu/virtualbrain/BrainStem/13VNAN.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)