Talk:Myoclonic epilepsy

message: *Group, you have a nice list of secondary sources of information in your bibliography section
*The section on Lennox-Gestaut syndrome doesn't seem to fit in this article on myoclonic epilepsy. It's appropriate to have a brief reference to this syndrome and to provide a link to its own Wikipedia page. Are textbooks classifying Lennox-Gestaut as a myoclonic epilepsy? 
*Your preliminary outline looks like each of you have done a bit of research, which is excellent. More work needs to go into organizing all of this info together into a coherant article. Continue the good work!
Neuropsychprof (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Instructor comments

message: I think that overall you'll have really great information. The flow of the article is also done really well a lot of useful information. Some sections could have a little more information, but overall Good Job.!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandler91 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Schandler91

message: * You need to cleanup the formatting of the page.
* Add wikilinks such as to Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis.
A lot was added, though it needs some cleanup/formatting in order to be properly reviewed.
Smallman12q (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Smallman12q

message: *Wow, you guys added a lot of new material! I think you might have favored quantity over quality, though. Make sure to proofread everything that goes up; you have multiple misspellings, missing and repeated words, etc. Some of the sentences are even difficult to understand. I know it's a lot of work, but when writing something in a group it's often helpful to either work closely together and really hash everything out so that you all have equal say or designate one person to be in charge of style. It will be a big job to rewrite all of this material so that it doesn't read like it is written by three different people in three different sections in the time we have left in the semester, so I might suggest that you pare down your length quite a bit. The formatting of your contributions needs to be consistent, your attention to detail needs to be consistent, and your style of citation needs to be consistent. 
*In the overview paragraph of the 'Progressive myoclonic epilepsy' section, there is a parenthetical reference to WebMD. This is a very unreliable source to use, and it certainly isn't peer-reviewed. Also, it doesn't appear on your reference list. What's going on?
*Going from what you wrote about Lennox-Gestaut syndrome -- that it presents with myoclonic seizures only 30% of the time -- I agree with Neuropsychprof that you go into disproportionate (and unnecessary) depth about the syndrome. As the author of that section seems most in command with Wikipedia formatting procedures, perhaps he or she should be a leader in getting the article formatted in an acceptable manner. Right now, you seem to be confused about what belongs on your talk page (banners, comments, etc.) and what belongs on your article page (only the article content and references). Also note that because your references are not in the correct format, Wikipedia's automated systems believe that the article has no references. I repeat that fixing all of this will be a big job. It might be more approachable if you revise so that you have a total of 6-8 paragraphs (including, perhaps, a more fleshed-out overview paragraph at the very beginning) with only around 20 references.
*In formatting your article, pay attention to other Wikipedia articles of the same type. As I understand it, Wikipedia generally favors prose over bullet points or lists. Make sure that your headings aren't redundant, are capitalized correctly, and are somehow set apart from the rest of the text. Placing an equals sign on either side of the heading will give you a nice bold font and a line underneath the heading. To indicate levels of organization, add more equals signs. Right now, I'm typing under a heading with three equals signs on either side of it. Find formatting you like and take a look at the edit page of the article to figure out what was done.
*You have done a lot, but I think that some of your accomplishments were misdirected. You have a good deal of work left. I know it's the third time I'm saying this, but please consider cutting some of your content in addition to reducing the size of the Lennox-Gestaut syndrome section. If you do that, I think you can afford to take the time to make the article of higher quality. Shorter, but better!
*Sorry to have been so critical!
FutureSocialNeuroscientist (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer comments

message: This article is very nice laid out maybe your group could add some more secondary sources, the ones you have are great, but it would hurt to add so more. The content is a bit lengthy, but overall it covers the bases, and organized detail. This article is in a nice synchronized order, but I think Rory's group could go a little bit more into detail explaining the side effects of environmental stimulations that might contribute to myoclonic epilepsy, like certain sounds or any other physiological alterations meaning stimulations that effect the physical body. Also I think that myoclonic epelipsy needs a specific section for treatments, and therapeutic interventions.
jtrice11 (talk)
=== Peer critique===
*In the first paragraph first word in the third sentence has to be capitalized: " Myoclonic jerks are....." 
*The organization of the article does not seem to respect the Wikipedia formatting.
*The section “What is myoclonus?” – does not seem to me to be appropriate for an encyclopedia format (to state a question openly, and then answer it). Also in this paragraph you state that “….can be classified physiologically as epileptic and nonepileptic”. While you explain the epileptic part, the non epileptic is not addressed at all afterwards. 
*Maybe you would want to consider inserting the “etiology” section as second section. I think the article will flow better that way. 
*I can tell you worked very hard on putting this article together. MariusCuciulan 69.38.189.54 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique

message: *In the first paragraph first word in the third sentence has to be capitalized: " Myoclonic jerks are....." 
*The organization of the article does not seem to respect the Wikipedia formatting.
*The section “What is myoclonus?” – does not seem to me to be appropriate for an encyclopedia format (to state a question openly, and then answer it). Also in this paragraph you state that “….can be classified physiologically as epileptic and nonepileptic”. While you explain the epileptic part, the non epileptic is not addressed at all afterwards. 
*Maybe you would want to consider inserting the “etiology” section as second section. I think the article will flow better that way. 
*I can tell you worked very hard on putting this article together. MariusCuciulan 69.38.189.54 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer critique

message: A lot of good information. You really beefed up the sections!
The only thing that really jumped out at me is the format. Is there a reason why it was done this way?
I would suggest cleaning up the format and adding them in as sections (with the bold title and everything) 
It gives a cleaner appearance, and it will have a better flow.
maybe a little more on treatment can be added
ALSO, FutureSocialNeuroscientist has a lot of great suggestions!
good luck peers
(ThatsSoAleks (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: = peer comments 

message: I am Sarah Jaafar a undergraduate student from Uskudar university, Istanbul-Turkiye, I am proceeding my summer course 2023: Special Topics in Neuroscience with Dr. Ayla Arslan, in which we are  required to edit Wikipedia articles related to Neuroscience, editing Myoclonic epilepsy is my assignment. You feel free to give feedbacks. Sarah.h.jaafar (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello everyone