Talk:Hippocampus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

It will be my pleasure to review this article; brain anatomy, physiology and biochemistry has been an interest of mine ever since taking some fascinating undergrad courses in university. Sasata (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good already. I went through it and did a copyedit, and introduced numerous wikilinks in the body of the article that I thought might be helpful to the less-informed reader. Feel free to change back if you disagree with any of these, or if I've introduced mistakes in the text. I have more comments/questions below:

lede
 * The lead should be friendly and inviting with a high density of informative bluelinks, so I suggest linking spatial memory, action potentials, entorhinal cortex, neurophysiology, neural plasticity, medial temporal lobe epilepsy. How about unlinking navigation, as that article doesn't enhance understanding of this one.
 * Done (partly by you). Looie496 (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The form of neural plasticity known as long term potentiation (LTP) was originally discovered in the hippocampus, and has often been studied there." This should be reworded so it doesn't sound like these actions (discovery and study) are physically taking place in the hippocampus.
 * Well, they are taking place in the hippocampus. At least that's how it seems to me.  There's obviously something about this that strikes you as weird, and I would like to fix that, but it's not coming through to me. Looie496 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Crusio has kindly edited the text for us. Sasata (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Functions (of the hippocampus) (I removed the last three words per MOS conventions on headers)
 * "The inhibition theory is currently the least popular of the three." This definitely needs a citation; if it's the same source as the last sentence, just move that cit to the end of this one.
 * Done. The theory is so unpopular that it's hard to find anybody who bothers to say so, but I've dug something out. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Inhibitory interneurons, which make up most of the remaining cell population, frequently show significant spatial modulation," clarify what is meant by spatial modulation here.
 * Done. I changed "spatial modulation" to "place-related variations in firing rate".  Good enough? Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Place cells are typically almost silent when a rat is moving around outside the place field," Place field has not been defined previously in the text, so its abrupt appearance here may confuse some readers.
 * Done. I changed "spatial firing field" to "place field" in the first sentence of the section. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The size of place fields varies in a gradient along the dorso-ventral axis of the hippocampus, with cells at the septal end showing the smallest, sharpest place fields, cells near the center showing larger, fuzzier fields, and cells at the ventral tip showing little if any spatial tuning." Perhaps this sentence could be broken up and simplified... it's full of jargon that is bound to lose some readers.
 * Done I changed it to The size of place fields varies in a gradient along the length of the hippocampus, with cells at the dorsal end showing the smallest fields, cells near the center showing larger fields, and cells at the ventral tip fields that cover the entire environment. Is that good enough? Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "... getting lost is one of the most common symptoms of amnesia." Citation please
 * Done. Citation added. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "This finding suggested to the authors that the hippocampus increases in size with use over time." Do you mean the right hippocampus increase in size? Two sentences ago it is claimed that total hippocampal volume remains constant.
 * Done I removed that sentence, since even if corrected it would have been redundant. (Corrected, it would have said that parts of the hippocampus increase in size as a function of usage. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy
 * "Most neuroscientists no longer believe that the concept of a unified "limbic system" is valid, though." Cite
 * Done. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Physiology
 * There's some redundancy with theta wave description in the second paragraph and the theta rhythm subsection
 * Not yet done I see your point, but I'm not sure how to solve it without reducing readability. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Two paragraphs in this section are completely uncited (which looks bad)
 * Done The previous paragraph had the source for them, but I've added another source. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "...when administered to behaving animals..." needs rewording
 * Done That phrase didn't need to be there; I removed it. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "It may also have something to do with the fact that the hippocampus is one of very few brain regions where new neurons continue to be created throughout life." Cite
 * Done. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

'Evolution
 * Complete sentences enclosed in parenthesis are to be avoided
 * Done I'm not sure there is any such rule, but I've removed the sentence anyway, since it isn't really necessary. Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision completed
Okay, I think I've responded to all the points that were raised. What next? Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll read the article again in the next couple of days, this time checking references, and with some textbooks opened up in front of me to help make sure coverage is representative of the body of knowledge on the topic. Stay tuned! Sasata (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Part 2 Ok after rereading the article, I fell that the basic concepts are covered well enough, but I'm thinking that the coverage could be improved and brought more up-to-date by citing some of the more recent review articles available; the article currently only use a few post 2007 sources, and there's dozens of good review articles available. A brief scan of the literature (and there's lots) shows that there are several areas that have been intensively studied in the past few years. How do you feel about expanding the coverage of the following areas? The expansion doesn't have to be extensive, but I think mentioning some of these sources would help the reader understand that this is a hot research area, and give them one-click access to some high-quality (and in some cases, freely accessible) reviews:


 * Strong evidence of correlation between hippocampal anomalies and schizophrenia (and other psychiatric disorders).
 * Age-related declines in hippocampal function and implications on learning and memory
 * Hippocampic theta rhythm


 * Response Yes, you have picked up some material that could be added to the article. I think perhaps the thing to do is to expand the "Epilepsy" section into a "Pathology" section, dealing with the hippocampal damage seen in psychiatric disorders and aging -- it can also touch on the fact that the hippocampus is particularly vulnerable to stress, which I hadn't thought about before.  Regarding the theta rhythm, that's my personal research topic and I can happily write limitless amounts about it, in fact I've been working on Theta rhythm in the meantime, but because I'm so close to the topic it's hard for me to judge how much coverage here would be appropriate in terms of weight -- it seems like there is already substantial coverage.  Anyway, I'll start working on a Pathology section. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent job, people! One minor criticism: I really dislike the way the references have been put into this article, one needs two clicks to find out what a particular reference is about. I realize that this would be quite a lot of work to correct and perhaps I am the only one who thinks this.... --Crusio (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like it either, but I just can't work with inline references in a large article -- they clutter the text so much that I can't see what I'm doing. Wikipedia really needs some sort of sane referencing scheme that allows the content of the refs to be kept out of the main text.  Anyway, I might be open to moving the refs inline once the article has stabilized -- that would only take an hour or so -- but while I'm working on it, I really don't want to. Looie496 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, makes sense! --Crusio (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Section on pathology
Okay, I've added a Pathology section with material on epilepsy (already present) and new material on aging, stress, and schizophrenia. I'm not very comfortable with the schizophrenia part, but I did the best I could. I've mentioned alteration in depression in the Stress section -- it's not clear to me that the available information justifies more than that. Looie496 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the pathology section, I believe the article now meets or exceeds all GA criteria. Sasata (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
 * Well-referenced, sources reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article gives a good overview on a deeply researched area, without going into excessive detail on any particular topic.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All images are either public domain or have appropriate free use license.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: