User talk:MarMarBla123/sandbox

This page is being updated currently. Notes and comments welcome.

Peer Review

Comment 1

Overall, the article in your sandbox looks good. I have a several suggestions about the organization as well as a few about the content:

• Formatting/Organization. Medicine-related articles follow specific formatting with suggested headings. The individual sections on the different types of alexia seem to be very independent of each other, making the article lack strong cohesion.
  • Characteristics. Pure, surface, phonological, and deep alexia are all different types of alexia. It may be helpful to the reader to make a characteristics heading and then have the different types of alexia as subheadings in that section.
  • Causes. The causes of alexia are spread throughout the article. There is one sentence about causes in the definition/classification section and then more specific causes in each of the following sections. Most medicine-related articles have a separate section for causes. It would be much easier for the reader to find causes if they were all in one place. Information within this section, could be divided up into different causes.
  • Treatment. It may be helpful to the reader if the treatment section is put into a list using bullet points. Also, using bold text would make the section easier to read.
• Introduction. The lead, or introduction, to this article is only two sentences. Since the lead is at the beginning of the article, it is the first part most people read, and many people only read the lead. Therefore, the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the topic. Since it should be a summary of the article, I would be helpful to include in the lead one or two sentences about each section in the article. Other than one or two sentences about treatment and history, it seems like most of the information needed in the lead is located in the definition/classification section. It may make sense to put the definition of alexia into the lead and then leave classifications in a separate section. Or put the definition in the lead and then put the classifications at the beginning of a characteristics section.
• Clarifications. There are a few places in the article that could be clarified.
  • Definition/classification. I find it hard to keep track of alexia, acquired dyslexia, acquired alexia, and developmental dyslexia. In the lead, it is stated that alexia is sometimes called acquired dyslexia. Then in the definition/characteristic section, alexia is referred to as acquired alexia. In the definition/classification section, I would suggest using acquired dyslexia is different than developmental dyslexia rather than acquired alexia is different than developmental dyslexia. The sentence, “Some symptoms of phonological alexia and deep alexia are similar to those of developmental dyslexia.” does not seem to belong in this article. This is an article about alexia not developmental dyslexia.
  • Treatment. In the treatment section, both bottom-up and top-down processing are mentioned several times, but never clearly defined. The average reader would not know the difference between these two types of processing.
• Links. There are very few links to other Wikipedia pages in this article. The only links appear in the definition/classification and pure alexia section.
  • In the definition/classification section, dyslexia is linked the second time it appears. Technical terms should be linked at their first occurrence.
  • In the definition/classification section, aphasia and agraphia are not linked.
  • In notable cases, saying he did not suffer from agraphia, and kept his ability to write is repetitive. To avoid being repetitive, I would suggest either putting the link to agraphia in parentheses or taking out "kept his ability to write".
  • When talking about specific regions in the brain, it would be helpful to link them to other Wikipedia pages (i.e. temporoparietal region - Temporoparietal junction)
  • Names should be linked to other Wikipedia pages (i.e. Joseph Jules Dejerine)
  • Agraphia could be linked in the see also section.
  • Red links. A red link signifies that a page that does not exist. It would be helpful to create a few red links to help others expand Wikipedia. (i.e. Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS))

In medicine-related articles it seems to sometimes be difficult to write in a tone addressing the average reader. However, this article is successfully written to be understood by the the general public. There are many links to related articles in the see also section. There is definitely a lot of good information in this article. Keep up the good work.

Reviewer: Mdreher528 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Response

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

We have made the following changes in our article in order to address your comments:

- Created sub-sections for each type of alexia instead of separate sections for each category.

- Created a separate "causes" section

- Sectioned off parts of the treatment section. We did not bold sections because there is an equal importance in the entire section.

- Made intro a summary of article. It now includes information from each section of the article. This now has our definition and very briefly states that there is a difference between developmental dyslexia and acquired dyslexia.

- Defined Top-down processing in Treatments section.

- Linked to many pages throughout the article.

- We kept the definition of agraphia because we already linked to agraphia earlier in the article so we did not want to link again. The definition also seemed concise enough to keep.

- Thank you for mentioning red links. We did not know they existed. That was very helpful. We red linked "Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program".

Thank you again for your comments. We really appreciate your thoughtfulness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2

The article as you have it in your sandbox looks good and contains a lot of good information. There are just a few suggestions that I have:

• Formatting
  • Currently you have pure, surface, phonological and deep alexia all as individual sections, I would recommend that you make the heading be Types or Characteristics and then have each of those as subheadings. This will offer a little more depth and organization to your article.
  • There is not a clear causes section. With the causes spread out as they are, readers have to read through most of the article in order to learn the causes. I would recommend making a distinct causes section that contains much of the information that is currently spread throughout the article.

• Content
  • In your Treatment Techniques section it is unclear what treatment technique is used with each kind of alexia. With LiPS, many of them are mentioned but it is confusing. Then with MOR none of them are mentioned so it is unclear which type of alexia this is a treatment for.
  • In the Definition/Classification section there are numerous places where links to other pages could be made. These include Aphasia, Agraphia, stroke and traumatic brain injury (if that is what you mean by other brain injuries at the end of that section).
  • Except for Pure Alexia, there are no links made for any of the terms mentioned in Surface, Deep and Phonological Alexia. It would help the reader understand these parts of the brain, or other terms if there were the appropriate links.
  • At the end of the first paragraph in Surface Alexia there is a mis-spelling (it says fluent aphia when I assume you meant fluent aphasia).
  • In some cases the introduction is the only part of the article that people read, so you want it to have a snippet from each section. First I would move the definition part of your Definition/Classification section into the introduction and then I would also use your classification information as the beginning of a characteristics section where you could put all of the types of alexia. Also in your introduction, I would include a sentence or two about the history and also causes. This will round out the introduction so that the reader can still get a complete picture even if they only read the introduction.

I think you did really well in providing adequate amounts of information and making it understandable to any level of reader. Keep up the good work!!

Reviewer: CWright93 (talk) 5:55, 25 November 2013

Comment Response

Peer editor, thank you for your comments. They were helpful in identifying possible changes to our article.

We have made the following changes in our article in order to address your comments:

- Created sub-sections for each type of alexia instead of separate sections for each category.

- Created a separate "causes" section

- Sectioned off parts of the treatment section. This was difficult and I hope it is effective.

- Made intro a summary of article. It now includes information from each section of the article. This now has our definition and very briefly states that there is a difference between developmental dyslexia and acquired dyslexia.

- Linked to many pages throughout the article.

- Corrected the "agraphia" spelling error

Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3

It is evident that a lot of research was done for this article due to the abundance of information provided. The information is great, I just have a few recommendations for organization:

• Intro:

1. Needs more than 2 sentences. This is where the reader goes to quickly figure out what will be discussed in the body, and allow them to figure out if they should continue reading. Make this a quick summary, not this short, but also not too long. Range 1 to 2 paragraphs.

• Definition/classification:

1. I feel as if there is too much name dropping here, without actually explaining anything. Terms were introduced before we even know what they are: "Some symptoms of phonological alexia and deep alexia are similar to those of developmental dyslexia.” Maybe mention this in another section in which symptoms are discussed? Also: "All of these sub-categories can involve fluent aphasia, nonfluent aphasia, or agraphia.” These subjects are introduced here, but they are neither defined nor mentioned again anywhere in this article. Either delete or define.
2. Grammar error: Acquired alexia differs from developmental dyslexia in it's acquisition."
3. Sections: This sentence would make a great introduction for the types of alexia category: "There are four sub-classifications of alexia. These include pure alexia, surface alexia, phonological alexia, and deep alexia." of course, first you have to make a "types" section. Make the section, and move this paragraph to be the intro for it.

• Pure Alexia:

1. You should either define agraphia or link to its wikipage. You can't assume the reader knows what this word means.

• Surface:

1. Again, define or link to aphia. 1st paragraph, last sentence.

• Deep:

1. Reader does not know what "semantic paralexia" is. Define or link to wikipage.

• Treatment:

1. You should sub-categorize the types of treatment. So, like make the words LiPS, and MOR headings, and then under explain them. Will help make this section appear cleaner and easier to understand.

• History

1. I feel as if the history should be closer to the top, if not the first section after the intro.

• Notable Cases:

1. I would not include this section unless you have more to add to it. This is kind of like a random side note about some guy who had alexia, and does not add anything to the article. Either develop this section more deeply, or delete it.

• References:

1. Their are two reference sections (one's at the bottom, just the heading), delete one.
2. Make the same references appear as the same number [?]. The following should be changed so that appear as the same number: 5,18, and 19; 20,21, and 22; 6, 7, 14, and 11 (note that the author of 6 is misspelled); 3, and 16; 12, and 8.

Overall, the information was well-researched and in-depth. Great job considering the difficulties faced with this project. With the revisions I suggested this would be a perfect article that no one could possibly complain about. Janessaaag (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to comment

Thank you for your thoughts and comments.

We have made the following changes in our article in order to address your comments:

- Made intro a summary of article. It now includes information from each section of the article. This now has our definition and very briefly states that there is a difference between developmental dyslexia and acquired dyslexia.

- Kept the integrity of the first sentence in the intro but moved the four types of categorization into the intro as well. We think this makes the section clearer.

- We did not link to semantic paralexia because we define it in the following sentence.

- Defined and linked to terms in order to clarify to reader.

- Fixed minor grammar errors.

- Sectioned off parts of the treatment section. We did not bold sections because there is an equal importance in the entire section.

- Kept the history in its place because we felt that those who look at this page will probably first be looking for the definition, causes and treatment and secondarily be interested in the history.

- Kept notable cases because though it is not significant it is often referred to in literature about alexia.

-Thanks for the note about the second reference section. Deleted!

- Linked to many pages throughout the article.

- We were not sure what you were referring to by the numbers. We reviewed them but did not see errors in the citations.

Thank you again for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 4

Overall, you guys do a great job of informing the reader.

There’s a lot of great information here. My only concern is that some of the paragraphs are too short in length. I suggest that you guys supplement some areas like when you describe the different kinds of alexia with specific experiments to create a better picture in the readers head. This is just a suggestion. Specifically at the beginning, the introduction may require more information in order to capture the reader right from the beginning.

I noticed you guys mention there are different kinds of alexia under the definition heading. My suggestion is that you guys subcategorize Pure Alexia, Surface Alexia, Phonological Alexia, and Deep Alexia under the definition heading instead of describing each under a new heading. This way, it will be easier for the reader to follow since you describe them in the definition.

Another thing I noticed what that you guys need to link more of your information to other pages, especially in the Treatment Techniques section. There are a lot of opportunities here to link some of the information you talk about to other pages such as when you mention Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS), bottom-up processing, multiple oral re-reading (MOR) and others.

Finally, to go along with the great information that’s provided, I recommend you guys insert some pictures for the reader to have some visual aid. This would not only provide visual aid, it would also make the page more lively.

Dvalleflores (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to Comment

Thank you for your kind comments.

Below are the changes to our article we made in response to your suggestions:

- Made intro a summary of article. It now includes information from each section of the article. We rounded out this section are you suggested. We chose not to keep the definitions as they were because specific ones, beyond the ones we gave, were not outlined in studies.

- We did use sub-sections instead of separate sections in order to differentiate the sub-categories.

- We linked a lot more now. It is well connected!

Thank you again for your ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 5

Your page seems very well-researched and referenced, but I think correction of a few organizational errors and grammar/spelling typos would really improve the readability:

• Formatting:
  • I agree with the other comments’ suggestions that it would be clearer (and make your ToC more concise) if the 4 types of alexia were grouped as sub-sections under one catch-all heading rather than being separated into seemingly unrelated sections.
  • I’m not sure if this is implementable in a sandbox, but since your topic is considered a medical condition in might be helpful to include the disease infobox reference in your introduction.

Definition/Classification

• • ‘Acquired alexia differs from developmental dyslexia in it acquisition’ I think you mean to use ‘its’ instead of ‘it’ here.
  • The second paragraph in this section seems like it might fit better as the introduction to a possible 'Types' section in which you group all 4 sub-types - it could also use a citation to some reference manual (ICD or possibly DSM?) that breaks down the sub-types of alexia in the same way, as I believe there might be some other conventions of categorizing them (such as central/peripheral) that include more types not mentioned here.
• Pure Alexia:
  • ' is when patients experiences' Seem to be lacking some subject-verb agreement here
  • Nice summary of the neurological basis of this with references to the area of the brain - should possibly link to the splenium and corpus callosum pages in the same way.
• Surface Alexia:
  • 'fluent aphia' I think there might have been a typo of 'aphasia' here.
• Phonological Alexa and Deep Alexia:
  • You mention in these sections that 'Research has pointed towards the theory that phonological alexia is a development of deep alexia', but that deep alexia is also 'more recently seen as a severe version of phonological alexia'. These statements seem somewhat contradictory, and the latter is not cited - is there a clearer way to express the relationship between these two types of alexia? Is this a chicken-or-the-egg sort of situation in which the root condition isn't clear?
  • Explication of where/what exactly the left perisylvian region is, a diagram, or a link to the lateral sulcus may be helpful for readers here.
• Treatment Techniques:
  • Not sure if this has already been mentioned but your introduction of the LiPS method could definitely use a citation - possibly introducing the ones you already have for the subsequent paragraph earlier could work?
  • 'Other treatment techniques' would be clearer as a sub-heading to this section.
  • 'other therapies that are aimedat improving' Space missing between 'aimed' and 'at'
  • Did the entire last paragraph come from the same reference (19)? It might be clearer to introduce this citation as soon as you make a related assertion and reference specific sections of the study as needed.
• History of discovery:
  • 'the ophtalmologist who examned' Opthamologist is misspelled and i missing from 'examined'.

Otherwise well-referenced and (ironically) easy-to-read handling of a prominent topic despite your difficulties with other editors - hopefully your future edits are much easier to implement!--Angelinerodriguez (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to Comment

Thank you for your comments.

We have made the following changes in our article in order to address your comments:

- Made intro a summary of article. It now includes information from each section of the article. This now has our definition and very briefly states that there is a difference between developmental dyslexia and acquired dyslexia.

- We chose not to put in a medical reference sheet. We played with it and found that it over simplified the subject.

- We moved the categorization section up and made the intro more complete in that way.

- Fixed spelling, grammar and clarified thoughts.

-Linked a lot!

Thank you again for your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 6

Hi Mariah & Alex, PC here--I think you guys did a great job on your topic. Your peer reviewers did such a good job critiquing your project I don't have anything else to add! Just please make sure you get these comments addressed by Friday! Please remember to politely address comments (especially from your classmates) on your talk page. I look forward to your guys presenting things to the class on Friday and I'll also post this comment to Alex's page so he can be aware as well! User:Midd Intro Neuro 8:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Response

Thank you for your comment professor. We tried to address all comments that our peers kindly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)