Talk:Neuroglycopenia

	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).

note

My main observation of this article concurs entirely with the tag - it does not cite any references. In fact, it does not even cite any other websites. Many claims are made in this article, but it would be good if we could have at least some references, even if just other websites, for at least some of them. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I ignore this kind of thing, but it's always pissed me off. Once upon a time (like back in 2003-2005), many medical topics had no articles, many words in articles no linked definitions or explanations, and almost no articles had references. When articles were written, others were needed just to explain concepts and terms. This was called CONTENT-- and CONTENT, not the references, is the core of an encyclopedia. As WP has improved, because the CONTENT of many of the articles has improved, people have begun to ask for references. References enhance an article, no question, but if there were no content to start with, there would be no need for references, would there? So every time I see a blindingly stupid complaint like this, I imagine some idler lounging on a sidewalk watching people build a building and saying "ya know, it might be nice to have some glass in those windows...". What a contribution! So why don't you either write some content or contribute some references, and stop fantasizing that leaving notes like this makes any article here perceptibly better? We got WAYYYY too many people here who think suggesting what someone else should do is a positive contribution. There. Got it out of my system, at least for now. I know I feel better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.83.163 (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is better now, as people have worked hard to leave references. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing though - the article appears to lack a conclusion. Does any one know how we can round it off neatly? 21:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroglycopaenic and Adrenergic Confusion

This article confuses hypoglycaemic (referring to all symptoms caused by hypoglycaemia and the symptoms caused by the bodes counter-actions) and neuroglycopaenic which purely indicates the mental symptoms directly caused by low blood glucose creating the energy deprivation. These may result from the 'hypoglycaemia' reference. The William's textbook of Endocrinolgy would be a better source here. --91.85.58.163 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]