Talk:Computational anatomy

some general editing tips
hi,

first i want to thank the people who spent the time to create this page. clearly you put a lot of time into it, and it shows with the 'meat' of the article having substantial references.

that being said, i think it is crucial we improve readability. one thing that comes to mind is the excessive usage of the term 'computational anatomy'. now, the usage is not wrong per-se, but effort needs to be made to substantially reduce the number of mentions.

i am going to try and do this myself, but i doubt i'll finish much. i feel this tip could really improve the readability of the article.

also, i found the mention of that Ulf guy's work (whoever the dude at Brown is) informative, but not enough for the lead. is it possible that we move it down to the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.155.181 (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016‎ (UTC)

someone make a paragraph for dr chomsky's work on computational linguistics
would like to slot it in as a third paragraph for the genesis section, please someone who is a fan of the field do it? i'm not familiar with it (i'm just getting familiar with this one!!)

thank you 174.3.155.181 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computational anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318034045/http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/ to http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118132843/http://www.med.harvard.edu/aanlib/home.html to http://www.med.harvard.edu/aanlib/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

COI review
I have read through the article with an eye to assessing if there are major COI problems. While the prose is that of an expert or experts clearly excited about their field and some WP:PEACOCK words and prose could be toned down--pioneering, key, etc.--I don't see any major areas of non-neutrality or undue weight in the content or referencing. Spot checking some citations turned up no issues and there is a good breadth of authors and research groups cited in the article. Hence I will remove the COI tag.

If I have missed something, please feel free to revert and discuss on the talk page. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)