Talk:Kent Cochrane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:KC (patient))
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Kent Cochrane was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 2, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Issue with lead[edit]

Hi -- the line Unlike other amnesic patients (patient HM, for example), KC has his semantic memory intact, but lacks episodic memory, is a misunderstanding. Most amnesic patients, including HM, have intact semantic memory. What makes KC special is that his episodic amnesia extends over his entire life -- HM remembered his childhood at least up to the age of 15. Looie496 (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Some fast comments for further improvement[edit]

  • No Caps on titles. Instead of "Motorcycle Accident and Neurological Profile" should be "Motorcycle accident and neurological profile"
  • Do not cite or link a book to google books. Instead include the whole data of the book in a template. (You can do it easily by adding the isbn number to Diberri's tool)
  • Wikipedia is aimed for a general audience: More plain language, explanation of difficult words and internal links is needed. Internal links should be the easiest and first to fix.
Actually on second reading there is both over and underlinking: words such as organ or card games should not be linked since they are not very relevant for the article and most people will know them. However there is no link in the rehab section...
  • Similarly paragraphs are probably too long and difficult to read.

Take a look also to User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011 where I have posted other (more general) comments for everybody in the project.

I will come back as I have time. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization[edit]

I have reorganized the article trying to differentiate KC's accident and impairments from the importance it has had for neuroscience in general by creating a "legacy" section. I have also tried to shorten titles as in general were too long.--Garrondo (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the suggestions. Some of these problems have already been fixed, such as the citations, formatting, and breaking up the paragraphs. In terms of fixing the language, this will be done slowly over the next month or so. Smguro (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Smguro

Peer Comments[edit]

Good work! Some feedback: the biography section as well as many of the others lack in-line citations which from my understanding, the majority of wikipedia articles need and require, so that there is a way to reference Rosenbaum, 2005 without writing it wout, just linking it up to your references at the bottom. From my understanding that keeps your citations in one format/style. Also, consider shortening the title "motorcycle accident and neurological profile" and any other headings that seem lengthy. Garrondo had commented that on our page that headings need to be short and succinct, perhaps cut it down to just the accident or motorcycle accident, I think its apparent you will go into the details of what that accident did to KC. Lastly, make sure you are adhering to the general public and any schpeel that includes scientific terminology could be complemented with the corresponding terms in the vernacular, as well as taking out "fancy" words that could be substituted by something equally appropriate and general. The content of your article was great and I feel appropriate to the subject, not veering off much and still encapsulating KC's effect on the neuroscience field, but that's why I am commenting on the smaller things. (i.e. don't ever say encapsulating.) Oh and I complement your within wikipedia reference links. Good luck editing! Sylwiahandz (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello friends! I really enjoyed your article. It was informative and I was able to learn a great deal about how KC has been able to have an impact within the realm of neuroscience. I too also noted the parenthetical citations and feel like they should be replaced by the in line citations that are typical of Wikipedia. There is Diberri's template, which is a really easy way to cite that is used to format PubMed Articles and books with ISBN numbers—it seems like you’ve used this before, but the (Rosenbaum, 2005) source just seems to have been overlooked. I also noticed that you had some topics linked multiple times within your page, specifically anterograde amnesia and retrograde amnesia. I believe that they should only be linked one time, which is on their first mention. Finally, I think that there are several grammatical errors and believe that their corrections will make the article more polished, i.e. “After attending a community college to study business administration, he obtained a job at a manufacturing plant that he held until the time of his motorcycle accident” would be better expressed as “After attending a community college to study business administration, he obtained a job at a manufacturing plant, which he held until the time of his motorcycle accident” in order to reduce ambiguity. Another example is “After a few days in the hospital, KC was able to respond to simple commands, and by one week, he was able to recognize his mother” would be better as “After a few days in the hospital, KC was able to respond to simple commands, and after one week, he was able to recognize his mother.” There are several small grammatical errors that are very similar to these two that could be fixed to make your article even stronger than it already is. Good luck editing! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This was an excellent article and definitely seemed to conform to the Wikipedia standards. I thought you guys did a good job of incorporating the relevant neuroscience, but still kept the article within the reading ability of the average user. One thing you'll probably want to change is how you cited your sources. Instead of a paper with parenthetical citations, Wikipedia uses numbered links to the bottom of the page so that users can quickly navigate to external sources. These are really easy to do; just place "ref" and "/ref" in brackets before and after the source right at the end of the sentence or paragraph. Try looking at edit tab for another page to get the idea. In the "Memory Storage and Processing Section" you may want to consider adding a diagram of the brain to quickly show which anatomical sections of it you are referring to. For instance, a highlighted illustration of the medial temporal lobe, hippocampus, etc. Readers would be able to get a quick view of the affected areas without having to read other articles. You may be able to recycle one of the pictures already on another Wikipedia page, as it should already have the proper permissions to be placed on the article. It isn't a big deal, but just something to consider. A small thing you should probably adjust is in the "Memory Impairment Section." You refer to events that KC cannot remember, including "9/11". You may want to consider writing out "September 11 Attacks" and refer it to the main article. Even though "9/11" is well known to most American readers, non-native readers may not catch the reference, and it is also not exactly in the normal Wikipedia style anyway. One last thing you may want to do is list some of the other famous neurology patients at the end of the article or somewhere. Readers interested in this subject may find it helpful to have direct links to other cases simliar to Patient KC. Other than that, the article was great and enjoyable to read. Pathyland (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article I thought the information was adequate and presented clearly, however, I do have a few suggestions. First, you may want to clarify what you mean when you say KC's amnesia and neurological profile are now stabilized and how KC's condition has changed. Second, it may be beneficial to include some of the notable findings learned from KC in the introduction as to give the reader a more complete overview of the entire article and the implications of the research that has been done on KC. Third, it may be worth seeing how to rearrange the article as to highlight the Legacy of KC and possibly reduce or condense the background information. Overall I though it was very clear and easy to read. Great work.Pklauck1 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job! This article is very interesting and informative. You have done a great job on expanding the topic. I particularly enjoyed the memory impairment and rehabilitation sections. Some of this information is hard to relay in a manner that’s understandable to the reader, but you were able to do it in a very successful way. One thing I would change, however, is your use of linking to other Wikipedia pages. If you wanted to, you could link almost any word to a Wikipedia page; however, it’s only useful to link the ones that are relevant to your topic (in my opinion). It is unnecessary to link terms like motorcycle, community college, and Toronto, Canada. It is unlikely that someone using your page for information on Patient K.C. would then need to find information about what a community college is. Otherwise, you did a good job linking to pages (when the page is relevant)! Your article could also be improved by making the way in which you cite references more consistent. Some are cited by the authors name in the text and others by footnote. Otherwise, you did a really great job. It was a pleasure to read! KellyCardinal (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall an excellent job documenting the “legacy” of KC. I only have a couple remarks. In the introduction you say that he had severe anterograde amnesia and temporally graded retrograde amnesia and then go on to say that he lacked episodic memory for his past. While retrograde amnesia is linked maybe give some information as to what it means for something to be “temporally graded.” In addition, while you do talk about the distinction between semantic and episodic memory maybe you can make it more clear as to what brain structures are involved with each process. For instance, KC still has his semantic memory does that mean that the injured areas are not involved at all in semantic memory or that other brain structures “compensated” and have allowed his semantic memory to remain intact. Yet was “compensation” for his episodic memory not possible? Lastly, you link up a lot of different Wikipedia articles, however, I feel like you link up too much. This is just my opinion but I do not think rehabilitation, community college, business administration, or Toronto, Canada should be linked up. Linking too much seems to take away from the more important words and concepts that require linking. Overall, a wonderful job and certainly very insightful to read. Rampreddy (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This was a very interesting Wikipedia page, and I really liked the organization throughout it. I enjoyed reading about the biography of the patient, the accident, how it impaired his memory, and finally the patient’s contribution to neuroscience. In the biography section, it could be helpful to compare his altered cognitive abilities so the reader can understand how his life has changed in that sense. I thought the section under legacy explaining KC’s contribution to research was particularly interesting and it might be helpful to emphasize this information earlier on in the article. Some of the information in this section, however, seemed too long and was difficult to understand. Specifically in the section “Semantic learning” I would recommend trying to make it more succinct and reader friendly. Under the intro, the “single-memory single-locus hypothesis regarding amnesia” is mentioned, though it is not explained here or further on in the article. Is there another Wikipedia page to link this to or some way to clarify its meaning? Finally, I believe there is an overuse of commas in the biography section. I do not believe a comma is needed here, “He also continues to play the organ, and play card games on the computer” or in this sentence, “KC is in good health, and is able to live a relatively normal life,” because the subjects do not change. Overall, this was a very well done article and interesting to read! ethingte (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


This article does a great job with organization, clarity, and presentation. Your page was very informative and easy to read. There were a few minor things that could be improved. First, under under memory impairment, you use the phrase 'imagine himself in future events" twice. Next, the citations using the authors name could be replaced by a more formal citation similarly to how it was used in the rest of your paper. I liked how you had the heading Legacy and then four subsections beneath it. However, the title Legacy with a line beneath it looked a little awkward. I would suggest either entering a few more lines or taking the single line out and format it with a little of a space. Your wiki page has a few technical terms which could have mini definitions to aide the reader. Also, I agree with a prior peer editor when mentioning the words chosen to be hyper linked. Chose those that would relate to the subject at hand and avoid those that aren't as specific. Finally, maybe integrating the anatomy of the brain when elaborating on the different types of memory would help the reader acquire more knowledge. Overall, great job! I found this article to be very helpful in learning new information. I hope my comments helped, good luck with the rest of the project! Bazoberr (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the comments everybody. They were all taken into account to make this article better.AlexGoldy (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project[edit]

Nice job Alex, Stephanie and Kevin. The article is in much better shape than when you started. One issue that I'm not clear on:

  • A quote from the Memory Impairment section "As far as his temporally graded retrograde amnesia is concerned, he is considered an anomaly; in other words, his ability to recall events prior to the accident is dependent on when those events occurred. Although he cannot remember personally experienced events, his semantic knowledge prior to his accident remained intact." It's not clear to me what you mean here. You say that he can't remember retrograde episodic events (which is true for his entire life it seems, from the reference you cite), and that his semantic knowledge is intact, but that there is retrograde amnesia is temporally graded. If episodic is completely gone and semantic is perfectly intact, what part of his memory loss is temporally graded? NeuroJoe (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:K.C. (patient)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This article was significantly improved as part of a university class program. I have begun by marking a couple of sentences that require WP:Inline citations to meet the WP:Good article criteria. Generally, speaking, any time you give a statistic or say that a study came to a conclusion, it is best to provide a citation that supports this. The citation can either name the study itself or any reliable source that talks about the study.

In terms of other criteria, there are minor grammar and style problems that may be quicker to fix than to explain. However, I believe that it fails 1(b) for having a too-brief lead section.

I have not investigated whether the named sources properly support the material they are supposed to, but I generally expect that this point will be fine or require only minor changes. The quality of sources named is generally quite good.

The article appears to be broad in coverage, properly focused on its topic, neutral, and stable. The image license is appropriate.

It's not clear whether anyone is active at this article. If so, I'd appreciate hearing from you sometime in the next few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As the article does not meet the criteria at this time, and it appears that no one is available to make the necessary improvements, I will close this as not listed. Anyone may re-nominate it in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)