Talk:Autotopagnosia

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Autotopagnosia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Throughout[edit]

Throughout the semester, Kelly Cardinal , Jason Robinson and Erin Crocker have been working to improve the existing Wikipedia page about the neurological disease autotopagnosia for our Introduction to Neuroscience course BI481 at Boston College. In order to maximize the content and quality of the article, any input or critiques would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! crockeer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello! I think you all are off to a great start. Some of the most noticeable problems I saw within the article were small punctuation issues, particularly in the introductory remarks. In the sentence “The disorder is often referred to as "body-image agnosia" or "somatotopagnosia"." , the period after the quotation marks surrounding somatotopagnosia should be placed before the quotation marks. Additionally, I do not think that parentheses should be used in the introduction; commas would be more appropriate in each of the two cases where they are present, i.e. “anomia (an inability to name things in general, not just parts of the human body)” could become “anomia, which is an inability to name things in general, not just parts of the human body.” The use of parentheses continues throughout the article and I believe that this should be redone.

Later, in the first paragraph under your “Treatment” section, much of the same information that is present in the introduction is repeated, so I believe that this can be edited down to avoid unnecessary repetition. Going along with this, I also noted that the topic “apraxia” was mentioned under your “See also” section, which is unnecessary considering that this specific topic was linked to earlier in your article. The “See also” section should be reserved for works that are not previously mentioned. Happy editing! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing our article. In the introduction section we wanted to integrate as much of the "original" article as we could, as there were only a few sentences to begin with. The treatment section verified this information, thereby making it seem rather repetitive. We edited the treatment section to eliminate any confusion, and kept the information in the introduction to maintain the basic overview of the disease and incorporate the work of the original article's contribute. (Crockeer (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your peer review! We removed the "apraxia" link from our "See Also" section to eliminate redundancy, since it was previously mentioned in the article. Robinsao (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought your article was thorough and gave me strong understanding of what autotopagnosia is. I thought the animation was a nice touch as well. One thing I am confused about is how this is different from general agnosia. You mention that it is specific to body parts and list results from a study done, but were these the only things they had difficulty recognizing? In the beginning of the article you say that some critics do believe that agnosia is nonspecific, are there studies that show otherwise? It also seems unclear whether this is a form of agnosia or anomia. You seem to refer to it being a form of both, but are these lesions causing an inability to recognize body parts or an inability to recall their names? Good luck! Dbaush (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review our article, we appreciate your feedback! In order to be unbiased, we wanted to present the arguments from those who believe that autotopagnosia is an inability to associate the names of body parts with the physical body parts and those who believe that it is a disruption of the body image itself. It has also been hypothesized that it is a combination of the two. There is still much to be learned about autotopagnosia. We discuss this throughout the article, but have made some adjustments we hope will clarify this after seeing your comment. I hope this clears up your questions! KellyCardinal (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, great job on the article! You definitely have a lot of information, and you organize it well. I added a link to the "body schema" page on the first mention of body schema, other than that I thought it was great. Just a few comments... -In the causes section, I feel like you could have a citation for each of the separate theories. I see that the source you used is a book that compiles many different cases, but you may be able to find the original articles so that people could refer to the research itself. -Do you need to have the section on the Left Parietal Lobe? You could incorporate this into another section--possibly the "Mental representations of body schema" section. Otherwise it seems a little out of place. -Maybe consider making your symptoms section a little more concise...I've noticed on other wiki pages that the "signs and symptoms" sections are more often in list form instead of sentence form. Good luck! Stempera (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review our article, and thanks for adding the body schema link! Since we were encouraged to use secondary source material, we thought that the causes section would be best kept as general as possible since it is part of the overview of the disease. In the research section, we go into more detail on specific studies and conclusions. Because of this, we decided to keep the causes section as is, although we do appreciate the feedback! There were multiple comments on the left parietal lobe subsection, and we agreed with you here. We have consolidated it into a larger "Brain Lesions" subsection. We hope this achieves what you were hoping to improve. Lastly, we kept the symptoms section as is because we have a short list of symptoms, followed by some more detailed information on the different ways the symptoms present themselves (i.e. semantic errors vs. contiguity errors). We felt that a lot of information would have been lost had we changed this section to list-format. Again, we appreciate all of your suggestions! Thanks! KellyCardinal (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done[edit]

Well done guys, love the use of tables and overall organization. Only thing I would suggest is to maybe move the History section to the beginning to provide a framework for the subsequent progression of the article. Also, the research section, while not necessarily too long, could possibly be broken up into subdivisions based on individual researchers, similar findings, etc so that it's not a long block of text. Looks great though, keep it up. Geerr23 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing our article! Regarding the history section, several people have made a similar comment as to the section's placement. As a group we discussed it and feel that without the background information provided in the causes, diagnosis and introduction section, the history section could be a little confusing. Although we considered editing the history part to make it easier to understand upon moving it up in the article, we feel that the information in the history section is crucial to the article and further explains the disease. Therefore, we are choosing to keep it at the end of the article, however greatly appreciate your input. The research section was too dense. I added sub-headings to break it up into the specific studies and the universal conclusions they all reached in order to make the article easier to read. Thanks! (Crockeer (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You guys have done a great job on the article so far. The left parietal lobe animation is a really nice touch, but adding some more images will make the article even better. The Causes section is well done; in particular the body schema categorization does a good job of making each level clear without going into too much detail. I think that the Left Parietal Lobe subsection is unnecessary and should be consolidated into the Mental Representations of Body Schema subsection. In the symptoms section, the last part discussing other disorders could have been left with just a list of the disorders so that people can just go to each full article individually to see a description, but I think it was a good idea to add a short summary of each disorder for those who won’t want to see full details. I really liked how you structured the information on Neuropsychological tests in the diagnosis section. It didn’t give too much information and was easy to read and understand. Overall a very good article!

Bsnawder (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review our article! We agreed with your suggestion to get rid of the left parietal lobe section, but thought that it would be even better to consolidate it and some of the other information into a "Brain Lesions" subsection, instead of consolidating it into the Mental Representations of Body Schema subsection. We hope this improves the article in the way you were hoping it to! KellyCardinal (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think this is an informative and well-organized article. I especially like how you constructed the Left Parietal Lobe section with the animation and table. A few points to consider for clarification: I found the Diagnosis section to be unclear at times. I am not sure what you mean by the "process of elimination" that is used to determine a patient's mental misrepresentation of the body. You may want to elaborate on how that elimination process works, and in the Test One section, could explain more where that test came from. You begin that section by stating the general method that underlies the test, but then move into past tense saying "the examiner and subjects were..." If this is a reference to a specific case study, you might mention what that was. Regarding the construction of the article as a whole, you might consider moving the History section to earlier in the article, after you define autotopangnosia, as this information could be useful in introducing the topic. Lastly, I agree with a previous comment that the Research section is too dense and could be broken up. I enjoyed your article, good job! --Smguro (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're peer review was very helpful, and we are in the process of editing. In the Diagnosis Section, the "process of elimination" phrase has been replaced to preserve the intention of our passage. With four probable mechanisms for body schema, each of the diagnostic tests are used to observe the patient's capacity to recognize body parts in different scenarios. While it is not so much a "process of elimination", the information obtained is compiled from the tests to be used to deduce which of the body schema systems are dysfunctional. In addition, the diagnostic methods were extracted from research and case studies; however, due to the introductory nature of our article, it seemed more useful for the common reader to know the basic approaches rather than the specific case study. Robinsao (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing our article! Regarding the history section: after discussing it as a group, we have decided to keep the article where it is towards the bottom half of the article. The history section has information that could be rather confusing if someone did not have a basic understanding of the disease, such as that presented by the introduction, causes and symptoms sections of the article. Rather than remove information from the history section itself, we are simply opting to keep the section where it is to avoid any confusion and still provide historical background of autotopagnosia. The research section was a bit dense. To fix this, I have broken down the research section by study and tied them all together with a final, conclusions, section. This helps to break up the text and makes the article easier to read. We have considered your comments and appreciate your critique. Thank you! (Crockeer (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This article is very well organized and it flows well. You touch on all important related sub-topics and incorporate tables into it which works well in the comparison of information. It's also aesthetically pleasing i.e. the brain animation. Starting off, reading just the introduction left me a bit confused though as to what autotopagnosia really is. It is referred to as an inability in "orienting and localizing" body parts. Without getting further into the article, it was hard for me to determine whether this was a visual, motor or memory defect. Even progressing through the page it remained confusing to a degree. You say that "pure" autotopagnosia is the inability to locate a body part when directly asked. Does this mean that is an issue with declarative memory? A little bit of clarity could go along way. If current research hasn't yet brought light to the neurological pathway the disease is affecting, then maybe a few sentences explaining that would help. Otherwise, very well written! (Amichael22 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review our article, we appreciate your comments! We understand how the article could be somewhat confusing in this sense. We wanted to remain unbiased, however, and present the conflicting ideas on the disease that are present among the medical community. Some believe that autotopagnosia is an inability to associate the names of body parts with the physical body parts and others believe that it is a disruption of the body image itself. Hopefully, in time and with more research, there will be more conclusive information on what exactly causes the disease. Because of the two comments on this, we have tried to clarify this confusion within the article. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. KellyCardinal (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of Boston College BI481 Project[edit]

Good job Kelly, Jason and Erin. The article is in much better shape than before, just a few small issues remain:

Terms in the "see also" section should be worked into your article if they are important enough for the reader to want to take a look at them. Some justification and context is needed to know why those terms are worth looking at. If they're worked in properly, then that section isn't necessary.
I agree that the symptoms section should be above the causes so your reader knows what the condition is in detail before trying to understand its causes.
I can't view a few of the references through the "pdfreference.info" site, and a few of the references aren't descriptive of the source.
In the Research section, the relevant studies should be worked into the section in a style similar to the other sections, rather than writing it up in more list format with each publication as the header. You want the reader to focus on the research and not necessarily the researcher.

NeuroJoe (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Autotopagnosia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]