Talk:Neurapraxia

message: Is this the same as 'neuropraxia', because that's the term I've heard used for this condition. Could we get is added as an 'also known as' indication? 128.250.5.246 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuropraxia

message: If any experts on neurapraxia should happen to read this, I think it would be worthwhile to fully discuss the probability of sensory versus motor involvement, in this article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensory/motor involvement 

message: I'll run through the article pointing out things I believe could be improved, but here are a few initial points:
*Wikipedia articles should mainly be aimed at ordinary people, not at medical professionals, who have other ways of getting information.  To get a fix on the target audience, imagine that you are an ordinary college freshman who has been playing pick-up football and went to the clinic after an injury that left your arm numb, and the doctor says "It's okay, it's only neurapraxia" -- you go to Wikipedia and look up this article to see what that means.  Can you make sense of it?  Probably not. We tried to make the article more accessible to ordinary people by linking more outside Wiki pages and by using common language instead of medical terms.   
:See if you can rephrase at least parts of this article so that that college freshman can read it with benefit.
*The article should explain how the word originated, which mainly means explaining what apraxia is.
*It would be better if the references were set up using "cite" templates.  I'll do the first couple of them to give you an example of what this means.  You can find documentation at :Template:cite book and :Template:cite journal. 
More later.  Generally speaking the article contains most of the information that it ought to, I believe, but it needs to be made more accessible. Looie496 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I think that you could elaborate in some of the sections just to give people a better understanding of the topic. For example, under “anatomy” you could add information about the importance of damage to the myelin/the purpose of the myelin sheath. You later mention blockage of conduction under “causes” so it might make sense to talk about myelin in terms of conductance earlier in the article. In “causes”, you mention reduction in action potential amplitude; you could include the significance of this/the importance of action potentials or some background information on action potentials. Under “diagnosis” you could link “Seddon’s Classifications,” I looked them up and there is a Wikipedia page about them. I am also not sure if the “conclusion” section is necessary. Overall, I thought the article was well written. I also though the treatment, and prevalence in collision sports was easy to understand. I would just suggest adding a little more information in some of the other sections. Randiew390 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Reviews

message: Hi guys, nice job with the article. It's in much better shape than before. A few issues:
*As mentioned by someone in the peer review, the articles shouldn't have a Conclusions section in keeping with Wikipedia style. No points taken off for that since I meant to but didn't take out the line in the rubric about the conclusions section. 
*You mention that the cartoon you have on the page of a compressed nerve is used with permission, but as the image page states you need to have a copyright tag associated with it saying as much. It will be deleted otherwise. 
*Under Treatment and recovery: "The outcome of nerve repair is dependent on the degree of the nerve injury and the circumstances at the sight of injury. " Site, not sight. 
*Some of your section titles have all of the words capitalized, others don't. In general only the first word should be capitalized.
*From the Current cases in professional wrestling: "WWE Superstar Adam Copeland was forced to retire from professional wrestling on April 11, 2011 due to symptoms of neurapraxia. If he wrestles again he could be paralyzed or even die. In 2003, Adam Copeland underwent a two level spinal fusion of the discs between his C5, C6 and C7 vertebrae. After being cleared to compete, he returned to the ring, resulting in stenosis of the spine, or a narrowing of the spinal column, above and below the fused discs. This narrowing resulted in less and less of the vital fluid needed to protect the spinal cord." It isn't clear how this is related to neurapraxia since it's a PNS disorder and you're discussing his CNS injuries. Also, you have no references for this section although you state that he could be paralyzed or die. Who has made that prediction? In general those types of personal beliefs or statements should be left out. NeuroJoe (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project