Talk:Nerve conduction velocity
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
Major Update
As part of the education program, I have updated the article to a large extent. There is a bit more work currently in progress so I haven't posted it. Specifically, the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome section will definitely be updated further, and additional research across other sub-sections may be distilled and incorporated. Alec DeFilippo (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (EST)
m/s?
This is a good stub and an interesting subject. Please add approximate velocities for myelinated and unmyelineted neurons in m/s. Comecra (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Peer Review-Anshul Das
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
Total: 20 out of 20 --- good job dude Anshuldas (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review-Steve Davis
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________
Total: 20 out of 20
1) Content is factual and cites many up to date references.
2) Article size as of Nov 18 is 19,434 bytes, falling into the specified range. Not in too much danger of going over the 25kb limit.
3) Easy to read and understand.
4) Article is sourced very well and abundantly with several recent references.
5) Abundance of links to interesting topics and base information.
6) Made comments on talk page to begin conversation with other wiki users.
7) Excellently styled and organized with an excellent table of contents. Course banner template is present on articles talk page.
8) Well written, easy to read. Already fixed the one typo they spotted after turn in.
9) Check
10) Outstanding! I love the charts and use of bullet points within the body of the article.
Final Comments:
Awesome article, I think it's ready for the final submission!! Sdavis32 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 3
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
- Nit picking but this could be said in more general terms:
- "larger wrist ratios (the ratio of the anterior-posterior diameter to the medial-lateral diameter of a wrist)"
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
- Very well linked
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
- I don't think this counts as bias, but a few parts could be rephrased to use more neutral sounding language:
- "Benefits of microelectrode arrays include"
- "The best method to establish a diagnosis is via electrodiagnostic evaluation."
- "Measurements of nerve conduction velocity are critical to determining the degree of severity."
- "Nerve conduction studies are critical for this reason, as electrodiagnosis is one of the fastest and most direct methods of determining the presence of the illness and its classification."
- This is most likely more nit-picking, but does this sentence mean that one or the other is always seen in every case, with no cases where both are seen?:
- "In all cases though, the condition results in weakness or paralysis of limbs, or the potentially fatal paralysis of respiratory muscles."
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
- Really well cited/linked and informative about both main topic and tangential topics. Charts were helpful.
_______________
Total: 20 out of 20
TDavies3 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Responses to Peer Review Comments
TDavies3, I appreciate the detailed feedback about the article. I agree that some of the language could be interpreted as biased, so I've done a bit of rewording. Hopefully it presents as more neutral now. Also, I updated the GBS section to eliminate the ambiguity you pointed out regarding "in all cases though, the condition results in weakness or paralysis of limbs, or the potentially fatal paralysis of respiratory muscles."
Indeed, symptoms may present as a combination of these and the updated section reflects this.
To the other peer-reviers(Sdavis32 and Anshuldas), I appreciate your good assessment/encouragement. However, any sort of specific criticisms (there must be some, this article is far from perfect) would be appreciated as I do want this to be as informative and useful as possible.
Alec DeFilippo (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Animations
The animations are very, very distracting for me, extremely distracting, to the point I can't read the article, especially the ones that flash such as Nerve_Conduction_Velocity_Calculation.gif. Even on it's own, why does it flash at that rate? It is to fast to be didactic which is probably it's aim. FWIW, and if I am not mistaken, certain flash rates can trigger seizures in predisposed people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.87.246 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)