This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells. Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy. Neuroscience Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Listing gamma and alpha MNs makes it appear as if it is an exhaustive list of lower motor neurons. It would probably be better if Beta motor neurons were mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Gabriel II ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Info better presented on lower motor neuron page (where there is some duplication) in a Clinical significance section Iztwoz ( talk) 15:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Oppose, agreeing with Doc James who has boldly removed this tag from the article. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Tag had been up for three years so yes removed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply