Talk:Neurolysis

message: Please be aware that this Neurolysis Wikipedia page will be edited in a few weeks by students in a neurobiology course. We are currently working on a draft and are hoping to update the page soon.Chadchang2 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi! Overall, the Wikipedia page looks very well structured so far and it was easy to read. There are just a few suggestions that I have to make:
First is just to link more articles just to make sure that people who do not have that great of an understanding on this topic are able to understand what is going on in the article. 
Next, I was slightly confused about the the headings because it seemed that there should be subheadings under the "Types of neurolysis". There are also some grammar mistakes such as sentence structure and only the first letter of the first word of the headings is supposed to be capitalized. 
Also, I think some pictures would really help clarify the topic if that is possible.
Lastly, just content-wise, maybe having a little more in-depth information on the topic might be beneficial. I feel like most of the topics just have an overall sense of what the types of neurolysis is but it would be nice to just have some more information in general aside from the types. 
Otherwise the source I checked is perfect as it is a secondary source! 
Mira pasawala (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary review

message: I was personally a bit confused by the organization of the article: is "celiac plexus neurolysis" supposed to be a subheading of "types of neurolysis?" Are there any other subheadings that are supposed to be under that? If not, then it just looks like there's nothing under "types of neurolysis." 
In the intro, maybe try to link to more articles (if possible). It would help make things make a bit more sense to those who aren't familiar with the topic.
That's all I really have to say, though!. Overall, well written and really interesting!
AshleyPT (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary review

message: Howdy! First, the article was very clear, precise, and well-written. Note, however, that some of the treatments discussed are rather technical and require a foundation in anatomical knowledge. Because of this, it is important that you use links and explanations of important terms extensively. In the "Background" section, the words "ablation" and "fibrosis" could use such links or explanation. I checked the source, "Celiac Plexus Block and Neurolysis for Pancreatic Cancer," confirm that it is a secondary source, believe that you used its information effectively in describing neurolysis, and see that the information that you pulled from it is correct. Additionally, the citation seems to be correctly assembled. Your article does a fantastic job at describing the clinical usage of neurolysis but does not mention any other instances of it. Does, for example, neurolysis occur in any diseases or disorders? Yet, if neurolysis is a purely clinical term, the article has covered it quite well. In outlining treatments, bias could emerge in which treatment is dominant in a specific scenario, but I think you have avoided this by using sources when you state the niches of each treatment. You should find an image to complement the material discussed (a general diagram of sensory pathways may be helpful). Also, there is some issues with your section headers. I think that, in edit mode, you need to add an equal sign before and after the headers for each treatment so that the treatments appear under "Types of Neurolysis." Lastly, as Mira said, only the first letter of each header and proper nouns should be capitalized. Otherwise, strong work! Let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments.
Patrick V1 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Review II

message: The article was well written! However, there are still some areas that your group should focus on when writing the article. 
It would be nice for someone who is interested in the topic of Neurolysis to have a bit more background information. In addition, add visuals to your article to give it a vibrant look rather than a plan one. Other than those key components, the article looks solid! Keep up the good work! AndreH29 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: The information in this article is interesting and has the potential to flow nicely. I would suggest changing the "Type of Neurolysis" to be the bigger main heading and have the actual types of neurolysis as smaller subheadings. I would also number the types of neurolysis so that the article is easier to understand, and create a separate section for the clinical applications. Mig0423 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: Hi! This was overall a great article. The text itself was easy to read and understand. I think adding more hyperlinks and some photos would be beneficial. And as the others have mentioned, the headings should be reformatted to make the "types of neurolysis" a headline and the types as subheadings. The I thought the lead was good and well summarized the info present in the body of the article. Nice job! Isabella3501 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: Hello! I thought that the article overall was organized and written well. However I would like to offer some suggestions on further improving it. Primarily, I think it would be beneficial to add images throughout the article. Not too many, but maybe around 2 to 4 that help the reader further understand the different paragraphs. I also saw a few grammatical errors that I think other users have identified, so I would also recommend fixing those! Additionally, I think at times the article lacked flow or I had to reread some sentences to understand where the general flow is going.The paragraphs (subsections) also were short and relayed a lot of basic level information, as others have stated, I think to fix this you could perhaps maybe include more subsections to lengthen the article or add more information that digs deeper on the biological level to cover more areas of Neurolysis. And lastly, I also think that adding links to certain concepts or words can guide readers who are not as familiar with a term to another source that can provide them more background information and can help them understand the information more clearly. I liked the overall length of "Lumbar Sympathetic Neurolysis", it was also well written. Medford22 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: The article was very well written! However, if a few adjustments are made, it could be close to perfect. 
What I really liked was how it was pretty easy to follow with the wording used which can be quite difficult in a scientific article. However, I think topics could be expanded on even more than it is right now. Also, the types of Neurolysis is a good heading, however, the proceeding headings that would fit underneath that topic should be a little smaller in size. Finally, if images were added to your article both provide color and a nice visual aide of what is being described, it can be very helpful! Other than those small changes, the article looks great! Let me know if you have any questions or need any help! KashTalwar415 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review