Talk:Apraxia

message: It seems that "apraxia" is more prevalant in the United States and "dyspraxia" is more prevalent in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. I think a merger needs to be done, along with a significant section for verbal apraxia. Arthmelow 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is completely wrong. Apraxia is the lack of the ability to carry out certain functions, whereas dyspraxia is the difficulty in performing them.Orthologist 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Dyspraxia 

message: the neuroanatomical areas are different but if orobuccal apraxia is listed as a subgroup of ideomotor apraxia, why not limb kinetic too??? 91.109.71.75 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can limb kinetic be counted as a subgroup of ideomotor apraxia?? 

message: It should be clarified that apraxia is not a "genetic condition." It is a symptom, not a diagnosis or disease.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.199.251 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic disease? 

message: In my opinion, I am surprised that this article received the high mark that it did: B-class. To me, it seems to be a stub at best. The introductory paragraph doesn't offer a good, simple summary; it rambles on. The list of "different forms of apraxia" is overkill in the opening paragraph. That information should be moved down to the next section and duplicate info deleted. That last sentence in the paragraph would be an good second sentence. The opening paragraph is, however, jargon-free and the few terms that are used are defined. That's a big plus. 
And why are only "some" or "several" forms of apraxia listed? Why those types and not others? What criteria was used for inclusion in this article?
Thanks for your time, 68.197.49.241 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tighten up and remove duplications 

message: doi:10.1136/practneurol-2015-001354 JFW | T@lk 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apraxia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004193549/http://www.asha.org:80/Publications/leader/2011/110426/Acquired-Apraxia-of-Speech--A-Treatment-Overview/ to http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2011/110426/Acquired-Apraxia-of-Speech--A-Treatment-Overview/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would be interesting (to me, anyhow!) to know the etymology of the word. 24.37.29.254 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes, but I suggest considering breaking up the Treatment section into more paragraphs. You can also add a hyperlink or a sentence on communication boards.
2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
There are still edits that need to be made in order for the group's goal to be met, including putting the types of apraxia in alphabetical order. Overall, great job!
3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
Yes, the format is correct.
Fannnypack (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanny's Peer Review for UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7c goals