Talk:Circumventricular organs

Hello there! I am Darla DeVito and I will be editing this page along with my partners Susana Benitez and Luke Ollila as part of a class project. As students of Professor Burdo's of Boston College BI481 Introduction to Neuroscience course we will be attempting to make this page more accurate. This project is part of a larger goal of the Society of Neuroscience to provide better information regarding neuroscience and related topics to Wikipedia users. Please excuse the many edits that will be occurring in the following weeks. To see the guidelines of our project please click here. —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We have decided to delete this entire page and replace it with our own. The information is not detailed nor is it accurate enough to be included on our page. Devitod (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Darla DeVito

Hello, my name is Luke Ollila, and I am a student in BI481 Introduction to Neuroscience and a group member of Darla DeVito and Susana Benitez. I have just uploaded our article on circumventricular organs complete with extensive research. Please do not flag this article as it has been thoroughly researched and compiled according to strict standards set forth by the Wiki community and our project guidelines. We welcome any and all critiques as we hope to make this article as accurate as possible. We apologize if we have made any mistakes in our use of Wikipedia as we are all newbies when it comes to editing on the site. Thank you and we hope you enjoy our article and find it informative. Lollila110 (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollila110 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Hey guys. Great article. Really well done. Just like to point out a few things. First I think i spotted a typo in your introduction where I think the 2nd sentence should be split into two after "blood flow" and before "additionally" where the comma is located. Also, I think you guys should get rid of " – hence its name" as it comes of a little rude and superflous. I also suggest making more hyperlinks. One example is in section for SFO anatomy in the third paragraph for endothelin. I recommend that you read through your article again to try and fix the neutrality issues in the writing since there are a few instances where it can appear that you are giving your opinion. One example is in the SFO anatomy section where you state "This seems logical." Another example is in section SFO function where it says "It is no surprise." This seems like an opinion and is not neutral. Overall the content of the article is very interesting and informative but I suggest edits be made to make the article be more neutral. Neal.shah.bc (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Neal, those are great suggestions. Thank you for pointing out our mistakes and calling the neutrality of the article into question. We will edit our article to eliminate any instances of opinion so that the article becomes purely informational for the wiki community. Thanks again. Lollila110 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I've eliminated the phrases which might suggest opinion and linked endothelin and blood pressure in the subfornical organ section. Lollila110 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Neal. I took your suggestion and got rid of the "-hence its name." Reading the article again, it did come across as superfluous. Susana.benitez (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
Good article overall and it provided a lot of information. Because of this I mainly focused on grammarical points, capitalization, and other things that I found. If you disagree with any of my suggestions, please do respond because I may be unknowinly making a mistake myself. I apologize for the lenght of this review.

To start, the capitalization of terms somtimes disagrees throughout the article. For instance, when you mention the "Sylvian aqueducts," you later referred to them as the "Sylvian Aqueducts." Make sure the capitalization agrees. This was evident between some of the terms you listed in the introduction and the body of the article. Just go through the article to check for agreement.

The introduction was good in that it provided a concise version of the information that was given below. There were a few things I believe need to be fixed. The first is the sentence beginning with "The sensory organs include..." This sentence can be split up at "They have the ability..." in order to make it flow easir and to avoid it sounding like a run on sentence. The second is the "peripheral system" at the end of the first paragraph. Because the article deals with both the vascular and nervous systems, you should make the distinction on which one it is. Providing a hyperlink may help as well. A third and final point about the introduction is the sentence starting with "CVOs can be classified in two ways..." In this sentence, list the sensory organs first because its respective associated structures are listed first in the following sentence.

The body of the article was well put together and I like how you separated each structure into anatomical location and its repective function. It allowed me to learn about each thing in an efficient manner. As for the order teh information is presented in, I would switch the OVLT with the SFO. You mention that the SFO is similar to the OVLT, but the OVLT has not been anatomically described yet. Make sure that the order you present your information makes sense with was is being said or compared.

In the OVLT section, you need a period between "...characteristic of CVOs" and "The OVLT..." In addition, you should make the distinction on what kind of angiotensin receptor it is. Your article suggests it is an angiotensin II receptor, but the reader may not assume that. In the function section, I would change “These channels with a high calcium permeability, then, are responsible for membrane depolarization and increased action potential discharge” to “These channels are highly permeable to calcium and are responsible for membrane depolarization and increased action potential discharge” and "climate differences" to "different climates."

The subcommissural section was well put together and I only found a few thing I believe need to be changed. Once again, if you disagree, please let me know. I would combine the first sentence to state "...Sylvian aqueduct and at the midline roof of the..." to make them flow together and get ride of saying "also" in consecutive sentences. To continue the idea of Anatomy vs. Function, I believe you should split the section between the first and second paragraphs. I noticed that the first focused on anatomy while the last two were primarily function. In addition, providing a link to the serotonergic system would be helpful to those who don't know what that is, like myself. Towards the end, you use the acronym "RF." Does this stand for Reissner's Fibers? If so, make sure to state the full name before the acronym. You were very good at doing this in the introduction and it was very helpful.

The only thing I found in the posterior pituitary section was the double period at the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph.

For the median eminence, I was confused on the term "tanycytes." Are these the specialized ependymal cells? If so, instead of saying “The major cell type that makes up the median eminence are specialized ependymal cells,” you should state, “The major cell type that makes up the median eminence are specialized ependymal cells called tanycytes.” Then you would begin the next paragraph with “Tanycytes line the floor of the third ventricle.”

The pineal gland was also well put together. I would like to see a hyperlinks to some more terms, like "pinealocyte sensu stricto," in order to help you explain the anatomy and function of the pineal gland. As for function, I would change “Pineal tumors can affect sexual development, but this relationship has yet to be established conclusively” to "...but the effecting mechanism has not yet been established.” We know that there is a relationship between the two, we just don't know why. Lastly, for "other pineal substances," try not making inferences and focus on the facts. Unless there is an article that says the “research hasn’t been thoroughly conducted in this area,” don’t say it. It may be better to get rid of this sentence because you are putting in your own opinion into the article.

Overall I thought this was a very good article and I especially liked the amount of articles that were cited. It implies to me that everything was well researched and that the information is accurate. Please let me know if you disagree with anything I may have suggested.

Ian Kates (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian for the review! We found this extremely helpful and we are currently editing and deciding how to change some of issues you brought to our attention. In reference to the comment about the serotonergic system, there unfortunately is no Wikipedia page for it at this time, there is only a page for Serotonin which I did not find useful in understanding the function of the serotonergic system. In order to try and help the reader understand this term I originally included more information on it's function and it's significance in relation to the SCO. This can be found in the second paragraph under the new function heading. Thanks again!! Devitod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian, I really appreciated the thoroughness of your review. My group and I took care of the capitalization issue and everything is in agreement now. I incorporated your suggestion concerning the sentence about pineal tumors. I thought it sounded a lot better than what we had originally. I also deleted the very last sentence in the article because, like you pointed, it sounded biased. Thanks again for your input, it really made a difference. Susana.benitez (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian, this was a great review. Thank you so much for your suggestions. I made the changes which you suggested because I believe they make the article clearer. Thanks again, Lollila110 (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Review
A couple notes of things you may want to do to bolster this page up a little bit. The first thing is that a couple of sentences don't really fit, such as the first sentence on the page. What kind of classification? It is a very vague small sentence that doesn't do much for the page and should be expanded. For explaining what parts of the brain are cvo's, I would put up a picture just so it's easier to tell what parts of the brain they are. Easier to understand visually rather than textually. Secondly, watch out for primary sources. Things like citation #14 may cause some problems because they are primary scientific articles and can cause bias in a wiki page. Lastly, some of the headings are confusing for main sections and which ones are sub topics. AdamMJenks (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam, I went back and reviewed citation #14 to determine its legitimacy as a source in this article. Though it is a primary source composed of research findings, the pieces of information which I cited in the article were derived from the introduction section of the article. Within this introductory section, the facts were supported by other cited sources. I therefore have determined that, for its purpose in this article, citation 14 is valid. As far as the picture, we have attempted to find a diagram which would help our audience visualize the subfornical organs but few if any exist. Those pictures which do contain accurate information do not have the proper citations and so we cannot use them in our article according the the strict standards of Wikipedia for images. Thank you for your input. Lollila110 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for the help. In addition to the changes Luke discussed, I also rewrote the beginning of the introduction so that it more accurately reflects the most general concept of CVOs. We also went through the rest of the article to ensure that there are no other sentences or ideas that vague or require us to elaborate. Thank you again for the review. Devitod (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)