Talk:Muscle coactivation/Archive 1

Archive 1

student note

Wiki Draft on User:Mges24/sandbox —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Notes - the structure of sections in this article should probably follow the outline here. Please use high quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Goals for student Wikipedia Project

The goal of editing this article was to inform the reader on what the phenomenon of muscle coactivation is, how it is measured, and why it is important. However, researchers do not know too much of the mechanism of this phenomenon as of 2017.

• Note: Although the outline was composed of the research of two users, the final draft was composed by one user's work, therefore a bit smaller in length than originally anticipated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mges24 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

student Article Review

For only having one user, this is a great article! Most of my suggestions are just regarding the format/flow. For your citations- they should come at the end of the sentence that talks about the information pulled from that source, not the end of the paragraph. For the flow of the article, I think it might help to split it into subsections. For example, you can take the last paragraph and make it its own section about measuring the coactivation. I think this would help the reader understand where you're going next in the article. Along the same lines, when you mention reciprocal innervation, you might want to provide a quick outline of what that is, so that readers know the role coactivation has in relation to it. I know this article isn't about reciprocal innervation, but it might help to clarify your point. The last 2-3 sentences were a little choppy and confusing (at least for me to read), so it might help to rework them a bit. Lastly, I reviewed your first reference and I'm not entirely sure if this is a review article. They say "we studied" or "our hypothesis" that lead me to believe it's not, so just be careful of that. Your first sentence is also very similar to their first sentence, just to be safe I would suggest rewording it. Otherwise this is really good work! You did a good job of explaining the phenomenon of coactivation in a way that's understandable to all readers, and I can tell you spent a good deal of time making sure you understood the mechanism involved. OArnold2017 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)OArnold2017

student Secondary Review

Good work, I'm sure this wasn't easy going at alone! It was mentioned by a primary reviewer, but just to reiterate, move the citations from the ends of the paragraphs to the ends of the sentences that used source information. One other possible idea could be to add another section at the end of this page that could include future research or directions for this page, just a thought. Mknut3 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Good for you! Nice article. So similar to what others have said above I think if you could separate parts into sections with headers it will be extremely helpful for readers to directly read under that header to pull out what they need. Also not sure if I am right or correct in formatting, but maybe move your citations to the end of each sentence to the corresponding reference if that makes sense. I think if you just bunch all the references together readers are not able to know where exactly you got the information from in which reference. But good job keep it up!Yoyotime (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

Good work on your article. I would suggest separating the information into different parts with headings, hyperlinking the technique electromyography, and moving the citations from the ends of the paragraphs to the ends of the sentences you are referencing. MWaight95 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

This article was really well written. It was easy to read and didn't use complex scientific jargon. All of the citations are currently at the ends of the paragraphs when they should be at the ends of the sentences or thoughts paraphrased from those sources so try to intermix them within the paragraph. Not a lot was covered, but that is explained by the article being completed by an individual student alone, which is incredibly impressive. With the information here, still breaking it into the subsections "function" and "Testing" or "recording technique" would help for organizational purposes. Because so little is known, if there is some information on where future research regarding muscle coactivation is headed. I would recommend rereading the end of the second paragraph a bit, and looking into rewriting the last sentence due to lack of fluidity despite the message and information being great. Also in this paragraph, the words "fine" and "of" were used pretty frequently and repetitively if you want to look at alternative ways to word those sentences. The article also sufficiently covered the goal outlined on the talk page, basically saying that it would describe the importance, function, and way of measurement. The writing is definitely neutral. The illustration is good, because it includes both the bicep and triceps mechanism described and the EMG testing strategy. I verified and read the first reference, "Muscle Coactivation: A Generalized or Localized Motor Control Strategy?" All of the information used from this article, which consists of a majority, if not all of the first paragraph, needs to be cited for this source after every sentence. Where the source is currently cited, it says that the article says muscle coactivation is vital for joint stabilization and fine motor movements only, when really the source should cite every sentence in the paragraph. The other thing that could/maybe should be taken from this article for the wiki is the conclusion that coactivation is a "neuromuscular control response" determined by a wide range of influences. mwelch1990 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Student Review

Sorry you only had one person to write this – must have been tough! That being said, I think your content is well written. However, your citations should come right at the end of the sentence that has the information you got from your secondary source. Your citations seem valid - I skimmed through and verified the information you collected from the Neuroscience E-Book (citation #4). This is a valid secondary article for sure, and it seems to say what you said in your article, of course yours is just more concise. To be honest, it seems that this book says a few things over and over again. I think you got what you needed from this one. Obviously this isn’t easy for one person, but I would love to see you go a little more in depth about the physiology behind it. What allows the two muscle groups to act together? I think the concept of muscle coactivation is clear along with how it is measured, but I am curious to know more about the mechanisms behind it. Your article is definitely neutral! This isn’t an easy topic to illustrate, but I like the EMG recordings you added, this is a nice touch. Overall I think this is a great star to an article! I would suggest working on citation format and making the page a little bit broader. Keep up the good work!

Note: I did some quick searches for the mechanism behind this and there seems to be little to no information! Bummer!

Neurosynn (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to Primary Reviews

OArnold2017 I will definately correct the citation format and grammar errors throughout the article. I also agree that the article flows better with headers. However, my original headers were removed. I also will reevaluate the source you mentioned. Thank you for your feedback.

mwelch1990

I will change the citing links so that they correspond with the sentences they cite. I also agree that headers make the article flow better, and I originally had them in the article but they were removed. I will definitely do some tuning of the article to change my wording throughout the article as well. I also like the conclusion that you gathered from the article. Thank you for your feedback.

Neurosynn I definitely will change the wording/grammar aspects of the article and the errors with the citations. Unfortunately, like you said, little is known about the specific mechanism which ended up being a bummer for me too. Thank you for your feedback. Mges24 (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amckinney29, Dperkins6, Mges24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)