Talk:Watershed stroke

message: The article looks really great. The writing is clear and not wordy, and it is clear that you have gained a comprehensive understanding of the subject from your research. The only suggestion I have at this point is that you probably don't need to describe strokes in as much detail as you do in the introduction. Try to pare it down to only the information that is absolutely critical to understanding Watershed strokes. Other than that, it looks like you guys are closing in on the final product. Well done. Stempera (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-peer review

message: Might I suggest adding the :category:stroke at the foot of the article (but before the interwiki links, such Spanish & German. I just noticed there are none.), thus: 
Category:Stroke 
You are then entitled to remove the tag at the bottom of the article saying that there are no categories.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Category 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

message: Hey guys, I read through your Watershed Stroke article and I thought it was really well written. I also found it to be very organized; it flows really well from section to section. I do have a couple of suggestions for the article. In the section of "Initial Symptoms", you may want to specify the acronym of FAST by stating that F = Facial weakness, A = Arm weakness, S = Speech difficulty, and T = Time to act. It makes it a little easier to understand for most readers. There was one part in the last section, "Current and Future Research" where you may have made a typo when trying to bullet "CLEVSRKNC Peptide" and "Liposomal Drug Delivery". I noticed asterisks in front both points, but I was not sure if you were trying use a bullet format or you were using the asterisks as some form of reference.  
Other than those two suggestions, I do not think anything else really needs to be changed. All of your hyperlinks and references seemed to be used correctly, and from the number of references you have, it seems like your group put much effort in order to write this article. Keep up the good work. (Colehawk92 (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: This article is very well written in that after a concept is mentioned, it is concisely defined or described. While I was reading, it was very clear to me the direction in which the article was heading. If ever I was unclear about a concept or definition, I could usually find an explanation immediately following. It was also helpful (from a reader’s standpoint) that with each new heading, a brief overview of the concepts that would be addressed was given. It seems as if readers of many different backgrounds regarding stroke and neuroscience would benefit from reading this article. 
Some suggestions: perhaps you could flesh-out the facts and statistics section. Only having two bullet points seems somewhat insufficient to warrant a separate heading. Also, people typically enjoy reading facts/stats because it is easier to perceive the presence of a topic/illness when you assign a number or percentage to it. Under the Symptoms heading, perhaps you could change the word choice of “further symptoms” (for some reason “further” seems like the wrong word). Something like “secondary” or “progressive” may sound better. 
Overall- very impressive and concise! Campanelli514 (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review (2) 

message: In the second paragraph of the introduction, you appear to have unnecessary capitalization with “Cerebral Vascular Accident”.  From a brief look at other sources, it does not seem as though this needs to be capitalized.
The article is very well organized.  However, I do not think that the “facts and statistics” section fits well within other sections that have been more specificlly titled.  It seems to be a bit too broad, overarching, and general.  I would advise that you either find a way to expand this section or combine it in other areas of the article.  
Under the subsection “initial symptoms”, the sentence structure is set up so that “quickly dialing 911” is described as a symptom.  This is probably not a symptom of the stroke but is instead an action that should be done when someone recognizes the symptoms.
You may want to include more hyperlinks early on in the article to provide references for some of the medical and the more advanced vocabulary that some readers may be unfamiliar with, (like ischemia for example).  The hyperlinks also get a little light towards the end of the article as well, in regards to the treatment and future research sections.
You have succeeded in including and citing many relevant sources and have done a great job in editing this stub.  Good luck and keep up the great work! (Coopersk (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review (3) 

message: Enjoyed the article very much, I thought it was very well researched and well put together, so any questions I have with the article aren't going to be too major. There was some use of medical "jargon" that is recommended against in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. For example the term infarct, which might be replaceable with a more common term. This was probably mentioned by others, but their seems to be some confusion over the use of FAST in the symptoms section. The T of FAST, isn't really a symptom, but a reminder that treatment is needed as soon as possible should the symptoms arise. In further symptoms  section, the mention that the opposite side of the body is affected by damage to one side of the brain might need a little explanation. The first two cranial nerves originate from the cerebrum, so you might want to mention that not all cranial nerves would be affected to an infarction in the brain stem. A wiki-link or explanation of the functions of the cranial nerves might help relate the symptoms listed in the next sentence and provide more flow to that section of the article. The word damage is used multiple times in the article, sometime with out some sort of context or with slightly different connotations, another more descriptive term could be used to provide more detail. A fair amount of specific blood vessels are mentioned (ICA) which would be a good idea to wiki-link. The treatment section provides good information, but I was a little confused by the it being titled Treatment, it seemed more like prevention, unless I'm just reading it wrong. Beyond that stuff I thought the article was great. Baumannd (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review (4) 

message: It would strengthen your article if you removed the direct quote that opens your article and put it in your own words. 
You can probably remove the discussion of ischemic versus hemorrhagic stroke in your introduction, as it is discussed in length in the "stroke" link within wikipedia. 
The facts section would probably also be better placed within your introduction rather than in a section on its own. 
If the information is available, it would be helpful to have a section that outlines the differences between watershed strokes and other types of CVAs. This would be good especially if their were distinct symptoms that set watershed strokes apart or possibly prevention/treatment given the uniqueness in location of the brain. 
Also, an image of what would be considered a "watershed" area would help the readers understand what region(s) of the brain are being referred to. 
Besides that, there was a minor typo in the carotid angioplasty section in which catheter was misspelled. 
Overall this was an excellent article. Easy to read and provided a great deal of information. Good job! Polvinod (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review (5)

message: I think the article is really well written and interesting to read.  I agree that more pictures, possibly of the waterstroke areas in the brain, would be helpful for readers who might not know the specific locations in the brain you are referring to.
Something I also noticed was the entire treatment section didn't have any references and could be expanded to provide details such as the success rates of these procedures or the ability to prevent future problems.
Lastly, I think removing the divisions between the symptoms would be helpful and possibly adding more detail to this section.  Currently the symptoms are more generalized to stroke.  I think by incorporating the different types of infarcts and the locations they correspond to would be helpful to expand this section.  That might help in specifying symptoms to the certain areas of the brain in more detail.  For example, anterior waterstroke infarcts affect the fronto-parasagital wedge, posterior water stroke infarcts affect the parieto-temporo-occipital wedge, and IWS affects the coronoa radiata and the centrum semiovale.  I also came across an article talking about the connection between Capgras syndrome and Fergli syndrome with cerebral watershed infarct that I thought might be interesting to include.
Great article so far! Kierak33 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 6

message: Very well written article! I too was going to mention adding an additional picture or two. With that it might be interesting to talk about the molecular basis of neuronal damage that occurs during the stroke (kind of like the information we learned in class); or even just a diagram might help people get a better idea of what makes stroke such a severe health problem. Also I found an article talking about how this specific type of stroke is morel likely to occur after cardiac surgery, this might be an interesting piece of information to include in your article. Here is the link: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/37/9/2306.full
Also, you could take the information from the Facts and Statistics section and instead put this information into the intro. I think it would be a great way to further grab the reader's attention to your article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenv (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 7 

message: Hey. I saw that someone commented on your introduction, but I think it was really well written. The information is completely relevant and I like the little extra detail since it helps put everything in perspective. I noticed one typo at the end where you misspelled borderzone as boarderzone. I would remove "Simply" from the first sentence of Derivation and Terminology. There was also a typo in the ICA Occlusions section where you misspelled hypotension at the end of the first paragraph. Overall your article is extremely thorough and your group used a lot of different sources which is really impressive. I thought the article was great despite a few minor errors here and there. 
Gshan12 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 8