Talk:Coma

Part 1: The article was not substantially improved, but Group 7a's goal was completed. The information under the pathophysiology for a coma was clarified in lay terms. However, there is still some confusion as to which aspect of neuronal function is contributing to the coma. For example, the ascending neuronal transmissions sentence does not make a mention of a comatose state, while the second sentence does. Also, I suggest the word surrounding be changed to its plural form 'surroundings'. Part 2: The article edits maintain its neutral point of view.
Maludino (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goal 1. Several sentences were added to the "Pathophysiology" section to provide further explanation to the physiological mechanism of action. I suggest splitting this single paragraph into two separate paragraphs: one about the cerebral cortex and the other about the RAS. This could improve the organization of the section and offer clarification to the reader.
Overall, this group's goal was addressed. Additional details and re-organization could further benefit the article and contribute to the goal.
Added points were supported by information from the cited secondary source.

Cpktruong (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Edits were only made under the header "Pathophysiology," and some improvement were seen. The two sentences were in a passive form (begins with....). I would reword the second sentence as "The comatose-state body cannot awake without the arousal and consciousness center" or something along those lines.

•Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Yes, the edits are formatted consistent. I did not see any weird formatting and the content was appropriately added under the right header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacklyn.Ang (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The group met their goal of providing clarification to the pathophysiology section. While they did add some information that was not there previously, I do not believe it made a substantial improvement to the overall article.
I think the pathophysiology section could benefit from being split up into smaller paragraphs, more hyperlinks, and maybe a picture showing the areas of the brain being discussed.
No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation was found.
Emilyplasencia (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opening section of this article seems to be gutted. I am not sure whether it should be restored to a previous version, or whether that information was deleted with good reason, but something went wrong and too much is missing. IbexNu (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]