Talk:Human Cognome Project

Peer Review
Hey guys, I enjoyed reading your article. Very well written, coherent, and encompasses a lot of interesting information. I like how you built up your introduction by explaining key terms that were further expanded in the remainder of the article. You have a wide variety of subtopics, which is great. The fMRI discussion and its uses in diagnostics, brain mapping, and the use of these methods in understanding neurological diseases (e.g, schizophrenia or Alzheimer's) was appealing. I have a few questions/suggestions that could help you out as you seek to expand your article over the next few weeks:

1) You mentioned how the Human Cognome Project can provide insights into developing artificial intelligence technologies. Perhaps you could discuss the state of such technologies and what lies ahead in the future.

2) Discuss astrocyte changes/axonal growth changes as brain ages

3) Under inductive factors subsection: What are some of the factors that control early brain formation and neuronal regeneration into adulthood?

4) Discuss basic principles behind cognitive disorders: including dementia, Down Syndrome, amnesia, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy

Those are a few comments I had that could give the reader a little bit more background and understanding on the many facets of your topic. Good read though. Robocop8908 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments! While your suggestions are definitely good ideas for understanding the cognome and cognition, they're just a little too specific for a description of the scope of the project. We're actually working on revamping the entire article to make it less specific. Thank you again! Cassianp (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello! I really enjoyed your article, and I thought it was very well written and comprehensive. I just have a few comments. First, if you included a definition for cognome, I think that would help with expand the clarity of your topic. Under the topic Development of brain morphology you use the word structure quite frequently, if you could find a synonym to replace of them it would be less redundant. Also, morphology is generally defined the study of structures and forms (in this case those of the brain). I think it is important to amend your definition of brain morphology to include the fact that it is the study of brain structures and its distinctive structural features. A minor detail, but you might want to link Semaphorin to its main article. In regards to your topic of brain mapping, you may want to mention that fmri doesn't necessarily directly measure brain function. Rather you can observe changes in oxygenation levels within brain regions, and from there you can infer that more oxygenation indicates activation of that region, which in turn can then be related to different brain functions. Whether a hemodynamic response can actually indicate a brain region's function is a prominent debate among many researchers who utilize fMRI and other brain mapping techniques. Sorry I'm being picky, but we just covered this in one of my other classes so I thought it would be useful. In regards to the pluripotent neurons section, Whatis the importance of cerebellar neurons? Lastly I feel that you could expand the current diagnostics section, and you if you could also benefit from adding a future directions section. You mention some of theme at different points in the article, but I think it would be nice to have a section dedicated solely to the future of the project. Well that's it for now, and I hope you find some of my comments useful. Good luck with the rest of the article! Barnarev (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the suggestions. I especially thought your definition of morphology was a crucial edit that we made, so I appreciate that catch. I will try to clear up the uses of fMRI. We will also try to add more wiki links to our page. I linked semaphorin to its main page--thanks for catching that. Thanks for reading the article so thoroughly; your suggestions were very useful Tilearci (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Tilearci (talk)

Thanks for your suggestion about clarification of the exact function of fMRI. I reworded that section to make it more accurate. Tlicolli (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey guys, overall I thought the article was really informative and well put-together. I especially like that after introducing the topic as a study of the structure and function you then broke down the article into describing the structure in one part and the function in another. I also agree with Barnarev that a future directions section could really help solidify the article but I do think you cover that idea in the Current Research section. I think that it might be helpful to just alter your header there and maybe include another direction the field may be heading in. I also think this would work because most of the section before it covering fMRI and MRIs in certain disease could also fall under the blanket category of current research so it might be helpful just to tweak that header a little bit. In general I thought you guys did a good job, there were so many links to other wikipedia pages that really help the reader get the extra background information, and I also liked the pictures. ~Elizabeth S (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We are working on improving our current research section. We will try to organize the article so that it flows a little better. Thanks for thoroughly reading the article Tilearci (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article seems very thoroughly done. The grammar and sentence structure were seemingly flawless and the article reads well. The information is clear and simple enough that it can be understood, while also going into enough detail to be comprehensive and provide insightful information about the Human Cognome Project. The use of connections to other Wikipedia pages is very thorough with this article linking to a multitude of other pages that help make this topic more understandable. The use of pictures in this article is also particularly well done. This article uses more pictures than most of the other articles in the class and the pictures really help make the article more understandable and enhance its comprehensibility.

Some changes that could improve your article are:

1.	Check the size of the heading under cognitive science. “Brain mapping” and “Cognitive disorders” appear to be larger than the other headings, which looks awkward.

2.	Under “Development of brain morphology” a sub-heading before the initial text such as “What is brain morphology?” or “History of Brain Morphology” or “Background information” would be good. All of the other topics have a sub-heading under the initial heading so this would make it match better.

3.	Under cognitive disorders, they should either all be capital or “Dow’s Syndrome” should be lowercase.

4.	Finally while you explore current research, perhaps you could find some information on where research is going and what the future holds for the information gathered from the Human Cognome Project.

Overall, this appears to be a very well researched article. Only minor improvements really need to be made. Great work so far!

JaimeeDavis (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments--especially the one about the headings. I fixed them so that they would all be the same size, great catch. In terms of Down syndrome, it is someone's last name so it needs to be capitalized. I still appreciate how thoroughly you read the article, thank you. We will work on the current research section as that seems to be a common theme in our comments. Tilearci (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
The topic itself was interesting enough for me to click on, but your page gives much insightful information on the topic. There is no apparent grammar or punctuation error, and the article reads well. Under "Development of brain morphology", you can add a sub-heading before starting right off with talking about the topic; something like "Background information" would suffice. But other than that, I would say this article is just very well-written with much information on the topic. I do agree, however, with many comments that it would be good if you added some future directions as to where the current research on human cognome project is going. Once again, great job. I really enjoyed reading the article, and it's evident that you guys have put in a lot of effort formatting and researching for the page. Parkcr (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much for your comments. I added a heading for background information--great idea. We're working on expanding on current research and future directions, as a lot of people have suggested it. Thanks again for the comments! Cassianp (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Well done guys this article is very coherent and informative. I liked the breakdown of the study of the brain, from genesis to cognition etc. Any criticism (if you can call it that) would echo what Jaimee Davis said. This topic is clearly a wide one encompassing many researchers and facilities and is hard to summarize in a Wikipedia page. It seems to be a living thing, and I think the thing that would be most beneficial to a reader would be links to participating labs, universities, or whomever is involved. This would include any research that is currently going on. Other than that I think it's great. Tyler8014 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! We're working on providing more information for current research, especially specifics. Again, thank you! Cassianp (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great article and excellent use of images to further understanding.

I would have liked to seen some sort of history of the human cognome project, such as what researchers/labs/etc started it or if it is a more universal project. Also, the section on cognitive disorders may fit better into a current or future research section. As you have it now, there is little discussion of findings from the project that aid in understanding of these disorders. Additionally, further discussion of the implication of the project could be added to current/future research.

Finally, it would be helpful if you discussed where the "project" is assembled. You have several external links that could be expanded on within the article. You may want to think about adding a section to discuss brain atlases as you have a number of links to them as well. This would help tie the article together to talk about what the project has done this far and where readers can look to check for updates.

One last thing on editing, add your citations after your punctuation marks. Overall great job with a very interesting topic. The article was very well-written. Dan Polvinod (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey dan, if you look in our external links section, it provides a link, it provides a link to Robert Horn's page--this should give you some background on the project. We'll also fix the citations after periods issue. Thanks for your comments. Tilearci (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Excellent job!

Very thoroughly and evenly written. Definitely a different topic style than the other articles that have been written here. One thing I would suggest adding is, since this article is about a project and not a disorder or physiological trait, a background on how the Human Cognome Project got started? I personally would be interested on how this research got started and the different breakthroughs that happened during the research process. I really like how you guys emphasize the benefits that the project has had in the medical community. One thing I made add about that in particular is regarding the "Cognitive disorders". If you guys could just try and add more specifically (obvious this is ongoing research so there's not that much info out there) how exactly the Human Genome Project could help researchers gain a better understanding of the disorders listed. Other than that, great job guys, keep up the good work! Heyjorge102 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George for your comments. We are working on providing more background info on the beginnings of the project. Tlicolli (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We've added a history/backgrund section, thanks! Cassianp (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Nice article so far! I like the inclusion of the images and I think the layout and structure of the article makes sense. In particular, I liked the introduction to the Development of brain Morphology section because it explained how morphology was important to the cognome project and I would suggest doing a similar overview to start off the Cognitive science section. In the Development of brain morphology section I think it might be appropriate to link the word “differentiation,” to the wiki page on “cellular differentiation” simply because this is a concept that the average Joe might not be too familiar with. In the Cognitive science section, under “Brain mapping” and “fMRI and early differential diagnosis” the term “fMRI” is used many times and many times it is hyperlinked and other times it is not. I would recommend linking it the first time it is used and then refraining from linking it any additional times. Also in the “fMRI and early differential diagnosis” section, I would hyperlink the term “pathophysiological” to the wiki page on pathophysiology. mistamoneill(talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I will add intext hyperlinks to the things you suggested. Thanks for your suggestions. Tilearci (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Just wanted to say that you guys are doing a great job. Your article is very well written and easy to follow. I think that the common wiki user would be able to understand the details of brain morphology. I also liked the fact that you linked main articles like autism and schizophrenia. You should consider adding a history section. I think it would be good to have the development of the Human Cogenome Project in your article. Also that way you could include some of the researchers and establishments that are contributing to the HCG. One of your links provided a map of the goals of the HCP. You could include some of these goals to show the wiki reader the overall direction of where the HCP if going. Overall though, you guys have a really solid article! -Songforsunshine5(talk) 09:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments! We're working on some research for a history section, as many of the comments indicate that that would be a good addition. That's a reat idea to take some of the goals from the external links. Again, thanks very much! Cassianp (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey guys, I thought it was a really good article and I'll try to not be too repetitive. I thought you guys could add a little more about the history of the project and maybe a section about the importance of the project and its significance to the medical field. I also thought a small section talking about any similarities with the Human Genome Project could be interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahaancs (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! We're definitely working on these areas! Cassianp (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We've added a fairly extensive history section now! We don't relate it much to the medical field because not much has been accomplished in the project and there isn't really research relating the two subjects. Thank you again! Cassianp (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article was very well planned and written. I think you guys did a great job covering a wide variety of topics within the spectrum of the Human Cognome Project. I thought that the sections on the Glial Monorail and the Schizophrenia were both very well written and very interesting. Also the section on MRI’s and fMRI’s was also interesting. That being said, there were a few areas that I feel could be altered or expanded a little to make the whole article come together. As an example, in the section on MRI’s and Autism, you use two forms of the word elucidate in the same paragraph. It’s a good word, but it seemed a bit repetitive. Also, you may want to clear up whether or not you need to capitalize fMRI if it is at the beginning of a sentence. You have it both ways in the paper, once saying “FMRI” and once saying “rtfMRI” to start a sentence. Under the Development section, there seem to be quite a few ideas thrown out, and this lead to the section becoming a bit choppy to read. I’m not sure if this is an area you want to focus on, but it’s possible that a bit of an explanation between ideas could make it flow a little better. In the Inductive Factors section, the discussion of inductive signals is a bit overwhelming with the four hyperlinked signal molecules in a row. Unfortunately, I don’t know what you could do about that but it is just an observation. Also, there is a sentence that reads “whether it be a neuron or glial cell in this case specifically…” and I was not sure what case you were talking about. In the Cognitive Disorders section, similarly to the Development section, I feel like you could expand if you want to. I don’t think it is necessary, but it could be interesting. Aronej (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, as they have definitely helped us clean up some sections. We have replaced overly repeated words such as elucidate and made the capitalization of fMRI and rtfMRI consistent. Tlicolli (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Human Cognome Project group,

I thought your topic was very interesting!!!! I really enjoyed reading your article!!!!! I think it is important to include the history of this project. That can be a possible area for you guys to expand. If you guys chose to include this, it would be the first section of your piece. In the introductory paragraph, you stated that there are many parallels to the “Human Genome Project”. You should give examples to this. I personally felt that the development of brain morphology is a little bit too brief. You can expand more on neurogenesis because it is a very complex process. For example, you can talk about the different factors that guide neurons into their respective layers. You can also expand on the different growth factors and transcription factors that dictate brain morphology. Maybe expand more on each topic and find others. Environmental factors should also play a role in brain morphology. In the inductive factor section, transcription factor and growth factors can be separated into two sections because they are different. This way you can compare and contrast the different inductive factors. In your article, you only talk about MRI. Is cognitive science only explored using fMRI and MRI? For cognitive disease, maybe you can expand by talking about some of the common symptoms or similarities between the diseases. I understand it is hard to talk about each disease, but maybe you can kind of give an overall summary of a cognitive disease. For current research, you can relate many other areas of research other than stem cells. Try to look for psychological studies. For the Diagnostic Section, you can link “indices” or explain what they are to make it easier for the readers.

Angiguo644 (User talk:Angi) 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input! We're working on expanding the article, especially in the areas you suggested. Thanks again! Cassianp (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your suggestions; we didn't expand much on these areas because they are too specific for the larger scope of the Human Cognome Project. Cassianp (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More peer review
Hi guys, sorry to be a party pooper, but this article is not what it should be at all. Yes, it reads nicely. Yes, it's a reasonable intro to human brain anatomy and dysfunction. So far, good job. However: it is not at all about the Human Cognome Project. And that is what this article should be about... Brain morphology, dysfunction, development, etc are all well covered in other articles and that stuff really does not belong here. You should start with a Google search and go from there. You'll see that there is actually not that much to say about it. Sorry to be negative... --Crusio (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. We're working on improving the article. Cassianp (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although you guys all seem to be very happy with each other, I'm afraid that that is not enough. The above concerns have not been addressed at all. This article as it stands now is not about a project, it's a haphazard description of human brain science. What does a section about stem cells in an article on cognitive neuroscience, to mention just one example. The biggest part of this article is stuff that should be (and is) covered elsewhere, but not here. But where is the project? Who started it? Where is it being carried out? Who finances it? A project is not a field of study, it's limited in time and space. I admit that I don't find anything like that in the article history either. Perhaps the best solution would be to propose this for deletion and just get rid of it, as at this point it basically looks unsalvageable. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We will have history/funding information up by the end of today. In the previous stub it listed all of the areas covered in our page as part of the Human Cognome Project so we just elaborated and tried to improve on what was here already. We are trying to find more information about the details of the project. We will try to include all of this information and take all your criticisms into consideration. We mentioned stem cells because neurons form the basic architecture of the brain as well as glial cells. We understand that majority of the project focuses on cognitive neuroscience so we will try to improve in that aspect. Thanks. Tilearci (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Guillaume2303 does make some important points, even if it takes you past the deadline I would work on addressing them. Much of your article focuses on basic and applied neurobiology in way too much detail for the scope of this topic. You need to keep your central theme of the HCP in mind when writing the article and don't stray too far away from it. Even if it's significantly shorter than what you have now, it needs to be made a lot tighter. NeuroJoe (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We have made the article a lot tighter in response to these suggestions. It is much shorter now, but we believe it better describes the project. Thanks to all! Cassianp (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-peer review
Hey guys! Awesome article, and such an interesting topic. I think you've done a great job explaining how this project is of great to the medical community--you definitely cover a lot of bases. Here are just a few suggestions: Good luck, and again, great job! Stempera (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is a bit wordy, and verges on being a run-on. Since it is the first sentence of your article, it is important to be clear and concise in your definition of the topic so that when people come to the page, they have a good idea of what they are reading right off the bat.
 * The "Background Information" heading isn't totally necessary. You can just include that paragraph directly under the main heading.
 * The format of your in-text citations should include the punctuation before the citation (see other wiki articles for examples of this)
 * You have a lot of information on neurogenesis and brain development, but make sure you continue to remind the reader of the relevance of this to the main topic.
 * (Preface: I'm not trying to make more work for you guys, but bear with me on this one...I think you could find this interesting/helpful) I think a really important part of this topic is its link to the Cognitive revolution and how fields like Cognitive Neuroscience are not only becoming much more respected in the scientific community and increasingly important but also how they are becoming increasingly important in the medical field. I think you definitely touch on these ideas now, but maybe reading the page about the Cognitive Revolution will give you a more firm foundation of your topic--not to mention some more ideas and probably additional sources you can use!

Thanks for your comments Abby. We tweaked the first sentence slightly as well as eliminated the header--both good suggestions. We also fixed the citation issues because this was listed in another suggestion as well. We will try to make more links between neurogenesis and brain development and the project itself. We will definitely look into the cognitive revolution. Thanks for your suggestions. Tilearci (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
I have redirected this article to cognitive neuroscience. I cannot actually find a source confirming that this project even exists. The sole reference in the article about this "project", is an unpublished draft. Pending confirmation, I think it is best to redirect this to the most plausible target. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)