Talk:Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) My initial take is that this article is well-written in some respects and contains a lot of important information, but parts of it are quite poorly written and some of the information is incomplete or incorrect, so it has a way to go before it deserves GA status.[reply]

Because this is a class-project article and I know that the editors who wrote it are probably not all that familiar with Wikipedia procedures, could we please start with somebody acknowledging seeing this review and being ready to respond to requests for improvements?

I will start with a couple of points concerning the lead, and add points as the review progresses. First point: I don't understand the phrase, "USWS is possibly the first animal behavior which uses different regions of the brain to simultaneously control sleep and wakefulness".

I think the lead misses the point about the theoretical importance of USWS. The greatest importance is that it casts doubt on one of the most popular views of the function of sleep, a view that says the primary purpose of sleep is to shut an animal down in situations where there is nothing useful to do.

Thanks getting in contact with us Looie496, I'll do my best to check in as often as possible to communicate with you; we do have finals coming up which will make things slightly hectic but I don't plan on abandoning this page after the project is over. I understand that sentence as being slightly confusing; I think what was largely meant was simply that while in BSWS both hemispheres typically exhibit slow-wave activity or wakefulness, in USWS desynchronization is possible. Since rephrasing this sentence to illustrate that might be redundant, would it be best to modify it to encompass the point you made above about the greatest importance of USWS? Mtportman (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the sentence is needed, you might as well delete it. Let me note that the usual practice in GA reviews is for the nominator to respond to each point raised by the reviewer, either by doing what the reviewer asks for, or by explaining why that would be wrong, or by asking for clarification. The reviewer can then check off each item once it has been handled appropriately. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed that section re your advice and modified the last sentence to incorporate the point you raised which is supported very well in the cited reference. "The greatest theoretical importance of USWS is its potential role in elucidating the function of sleep by challenging various current notions. Researchers have looked to animals exhibiting USWS to determine if sleep must be essential; otherwise species exhibiting USWS would have eliminated the behavior altogether through evolution."

Does that seem to cover the point you made? Because I do agree that what you mentioned needs to be clear.Mtportman (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this review going to be continued? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]