Talk:Racine stages

1. Quality of Information: 1 – try to find more up-to-date articles

2. Article size: 0 – only had 9.4 kilobytes (has 7kB now)

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1 - you don’t have any articles within the last 3 years

5. Links: 1- you could probable link more terms in the “introduction” section

6. Responsive to comments: 2 – no comments before this

7. Formatting: 1 – you have headline of “Racine Stages” under the table of contents

8. Writing: 1 – you have a few grammar mistakes throughout the page

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 – I liked the video, just go through your paper again and expand more on each of your sections (for example, define who HM is briefly before starting to talk about him).

_______________

Total: 12 out of 20 Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 1/2
Comment – Some of the information is reintroduced multiple times, but not elaborated upon.
2. Article size: 1/2
Comment – had 9,467 bytes before 11/19
3. Readability: 2/2
4. Refs: 1/2
Comment – Given the prevalence of Epilepsy research, the citation of articles published in recent years would give your article more credibility.
5. Links: 2/2
6. Responsive to comments: 2/2
7. Formatting: 1/2
Comments – An introduction is unnecessary as a separate section. You could include this in the first section where you say “Racine stages are…..”
8. Writing: 1/2
Comment – There are multiple grammatical errors throughout the paper. It would be nice be able to read more about what type of research is being done also. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2
10. Outstanding?: 1/2
Comments – Not much information is presented for readers who just want a summary of the topic. The video, while interesting, doesn't really show much on its own. It may be useful to add more information on what exactly is happening in the clip.
_______________
Total: 14 out of 20

• • All comments are based on version submitted for grading
    

AlexLee90 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 1/2

Comment: you repeat jumping and running under clinical uses and you misspelled jumping

2. Article size: 1/2

Comment: The video obviously takes up a lot of room but the actual written content is short and could use more concrete examples.

3. Readability: 1/2

Comment: The large video in the middle of the page is a bit distracting. Could you reduce the size? Or provide an explanation for what the video is showing.

4. Refs: 1/2

Comment: You need more resources from recent articles.

5. Links: 1/2

Comment: Related to quality of information, more definite diction and concrete details will allow for more links

6. Responsive to comments: 2/2

7. Formatting: 2/2

8. Writing: 1/2

Comment: do not capitalize "epileptic" or "hippocampus"

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2

10. Outstanding?: 1/2

Comment: would give full points if better written content because the embedded video is really impressive

_______________ Total: 13 out of 20 AllisonMaloney (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is very inaccurate

The racine classification is only to classify seizures in animal models for epilepsy. It has no applicability in humans whatsoever and does not directly help eplilepsy patients in any way. Ronald Racine's score system undoubtely has made a huge contribution to epilepsy research, and his score system is still used today, often in unchanged form. Therefore, the article should focus on animal research and leave all links to human epilepsy out. This includes the story of Henry Molaison; it makes absolutely no sense why that is mentioned in this article.

Also, it is stated that 'Once the epileptic patient experiences a seizure, the patient becomes more susceptible to having further seizures'. This phenomenon, known as 'seizures beget seizures', is certainly true for kindling in animal models but there is still much debate whether such an mechanism actually exists in humans . Thus, reporting this without even providing a reference is controversial at best.

I would recommend rewriting the article, leaving out all links of the racine classification to human epilepsy, as there are no direct links between these two subjects.

kind regards,

Lex Groot, dutch wikipedia contributor (forgot my password -_- ) and last year medical student 145.29.254.33 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Superfluous information

The section on the extra stages added to the standard 5 Racine stages also contains the following: "Research into the cure for epilepsy is ongoing. Different levels of tolerance to outside stimulus exist for each patient. Some patients experience seizures with audio or visual stimulation. However, some patients are more sensitive to environmental factors than others.[4] In most cases treatment from medication or surgery can help limit the prevalence of seizures.[10][11] However, these treatment methods do not always cure the patient.[12]" This has nothing whatsoever to do with this classification of seizures in a rat model.

Stuart Black (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) (Medical student and neuroscience master's degree student)