Talk:Human brain/Archive 3

Language section
@ in your edit you remove this text: And inserted this text: I have provided a recent, widely accepted tertiary source to verify these claims. Primary sources are unreliable and tend not to be used here on WP (WP:PSTS). Can we find a way to reflect your concerns (note that "There has been substantial debate over these pathways" is already present) without removing what appears to be accepted scientific consensus at this point? --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Language functions are generally localized to Wernicke's area and Broca's area."
 * "Wernicke's area is at the posterior part of the superior temporal gyrus of the dominant half of the brain, and seems to be responsible for creation and interpretation of spoken thought. Broca's area is located in the prefrontal cortex, most commonly on the left side of the brain, and is responsible for the creation of motor activity responsible for speaking. These two areas are connected by the arcuate fasciculus. Areas of the cerebellum, basal ganglia and areas of the motor cortex related to the face and larynx also play a role in coordinating and regulating muscle movements during speech. There has been substantial debate over these pathways"
 * "It was later observed, however, that the correlation between behavioural symptoms and regions of brain damage is weak. There currently is substantial debate over which brain structures are involved in which aspects of language use."


 * "Language is localized to Wernicke's and Broca's area" is absolutely not the accepted scientific consensus, any more than "your health is based on four humours" is. I have been attending academic conferences on this topic for many years; these claims are controversial at best and are nothing close to scientific consensus (although unfortunately they are still taught in many textbooks; but then again, creationism is also taught in many textbooks, so "it appears in textbooks" is a lousy metric for inclusion).
 * The sources I put in are not primary sources. The main source I left in my edit, the Poeppel et al. paper, is a peer-reviewed scientific review article and was already present in the earlier version (although it was put next to claims that are not actually in those papers). If you read these papers you will see that they do not at all support this claim, and they explicitly make references to networks beyond Wernicke's and Broca's areas that support language.
 * Another source you may be interested in is Fedorenko & Kanwisher (2009), which provides a decent review of these issues on pp. 840-841, ending with "Thus, language appears to  rely  on  a  network  much  more extensive than the initially hypothesized set of two primary regions in the left frontal and left temporal lobes." This stuff is not news, it has been widely known for a long time. (This, too, is not a primary source; the journal Language & Linguistics Compass only publishes broad review articles, not original research.) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, after looking into this in more depth I admit I am wrong -- many thanks for pointing this out. I eat my linguistic socks (and semantic sandals) to boot. I have changed the text back to reflect consensus. I unfortunately am strapped for time to perfect a way to represent Wernicke's/Broca's areas, but would like to mention them given they still form a large part of conventional teaching but in a way that acknowledges this view has been superseded... and then maybe in 5-10 years with more acceptance we can deprecate the representation further. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't my edit already still mention Wernicke's and Broca's, while pointing out that they once were considered language centers but no longer are? So I don't really see what the big question is. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @ agree, thank you again for your edits, please have a look at the rest of the article too, this is a complex organ :)--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just chipping in to say (belatedly) that Rjanag is right that the Wernicke/Broca areas as the brains "language centers" is now considered outdated and simplistic by neurolinguists and neurologists- I think the reason that it is still taught is for the historical relevance and because it serves as a heuristic for to make understanding the relation between the brain and language easier.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as we are sticking to the most up-to-date information and are using tertiary or secondary sources, instead of primary sources, for the matter (for reasons noted at WP:MEDRS about sourcing issues), we will be fine. What used to be believed about the brain should also obviously be included. In this case, it seems it should go in the section in question rather than in the History section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

____

Pre GA nomination
I think we are getting very close to a GA nom here... the article is mostly fleshed out and generally cited. Three issues that may need to be addressed:
 * Providing citations
 * "Other animals" and in the disease section
 * Trimming the lead

What do other editors think... is there anything else that is outstanding? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping to, and


 * The ping didn't work, but I've found my way to the section, LOL. Well, as noted above, I still want to add the wrinkling aspect to the article, but that's no reason to hold up a GA nomination.


 * I see that the lead was broken up into six paragraphs. Per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be four paragraphs. But this article seems to be the rare exception to the standard four-paragraph lead. I'd been meaning to address the huge first paragraph, but I was wondering how to split up the text and whether anything I might trim should stay in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Have just made some heading changes in line with usual sectioning - Body fluids circulation may not be acceptable but couldn't see another way of making (inclusive) separation.  Re Tom's earlier comments - feel that there's a lot more needed for such a complex subject - as article is greatly improved say since three months ago don't appreciate the urgency for taking it to GA.  There's no mention of cortical columns for instance and the whole area of microanatomy is underrepresented; more is also needed for Development and a lot more for Neurotransmission. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the 'fluids' heading, for the reason you state. I feel CSF and blood supply should remain separate topics, as they each have their own importance distinctions, and I'm am not sure what the additional benefit of a "body fluids" section heading would be. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Lateralization section
With this edit, LT910001 (Tom) removed a bit from the Lateralization section, stating, "boldly remove last paragraph - first two do an excellent job of explaining lateralisation and article is already quite long."

I reverted, stating, "I feel that this should remain as it helps readers understand how this research has been conducted. It's also more informative than the previous paragraph on this strange brain behavior." I keep looking at it and I still feel that it should stay. It's a small, informative paragraph, and I don't see the harm in letting it remain.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22, no strong feelings about this section... I made those two edits as I'm getting a bit concerned about the length of the article, now 138k kilobytes. Even on my fast connection and relatively new computer the page takes some time to load... and we haven't even fully fleshed out the article. Also I do not think split brain patients reveal that much about lateralisation; just as much information is provided by location of stroke and functional imaging, as described in the "research" section. What do you think about the article length? (perhaps this is just in my mind). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Tom, I don't just think that the split-brain aspect is an interesting tidbit. I truly think including it helps readers understand the odd lateralization aspect of the brain. After all, these split-brain studies have helped scientists understand the brain and a number of them have gone on to describe people as two people in one body because of these studies. With the split-brain text gone, readers are deprived of the following, for example: "These patients do not show unusual behavior that is immediately obvious, but in some cases can behave almost like two different people in the same body, with the right hand taking an action and then the left hand undoing it. These patients, when briefly shown a picture on the right side of the point of visual fixation, are able to describe it verbally, but when the picture is shown on the left, are unable to describe it, but may be able to give an indication with the left hand of the nature of the object shown." To me, this aspect demonstrates the odd lateralization aspect better than the previous text in the section. The previous text in the section is more technical, while this latter text is more analytical.


 * As for the size of the article, given the topic at hand, I don't see it as that big. We have president articles that are just as big or bigger. And understanding the human brain is just as important, or more so, than reading about a president. We are exercising WP:Summary style well in the article. By that, I mean we are leaving the more detailed information to the main articles. If any cutting is needed after we feel that we are essentially done with improving the article, we can weigh in on that matter then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

British English
Regarding this, I wanted to state this soon after the tag was added, but I will keep the British English aspect in mind when editing the article. I'm not British (I'm American); some others working on the article might not be British either. So when we see a slip up, let's make sure to correct it, per the "Consistency within articles" aspect of WP:ENGVAR. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That includes headings, like the "Lateralization" heading, as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on Synaptic Transmission
I was wondering what other editors thought about adding a new section on synaptic transmission. Neurotransmission and (less so) communications at gap junctions are important aspects of brain physiology, but are not covered much in this article.Petergstrom (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a section Neurotransmission and synaptic transmission is an aka of this. Have added another hatnote to section - as a lot of other sections there is room for a little expansion. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that an article like this should be largely understandable by an intelligent high school student, and almost fully understandable by an intelligent undergraduate non-biology major. I would say gap junctions are too technical, but the article should discuss neurotransmission at a sufficient level to give the reader a concept of how psychoactive drugs act on the brain. Looie496 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with Iztwoz. A little expansion in the already existing section would be okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Gene and protein expression section
Any thoughts on the "Gene and protein expression" section that Figgep added (followup edit here)? For example, the use of proteinatlas.org as a source? Per WP:COI, Doc James has criticized Figgep for adding the proteinatlas.org source to articles, but Doc James focused on the External links sections. I know that the usual watchers are watching; so pinging Seppi333 and Chiswick Chap for their thoughts as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as the quality of content that was added is up to par with a GA-class article, I don't see any issue with an editor with a COI related to a website adding content from that website. The quality point is key here, because a COI simply means information is likely to be biased towards the sources with which one has a COI; it does not necessarily mean that the source is NPOV/biased or low-quality/bad though.  E.g., WP:MED welcomes editors with a Cochrane affiliation to edit medical articles and add content from Cochrane reviews.  My advice is to use editorial judgment on a case-by-case basis.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Seppi333, what do you make of the quality of the sources and the content, though? And should the content be integrated into an already existing section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for inviting me. Personally, if I was actively editing this article (which I have no intention of doing), I'd chop the section as only tangential to the topic, or cut it down to focus on the most relevant material: the main link in the section suggests a possible alternative target, or one might have an article on Gene and protein expression in the human body or something of the sort. I certainly wouldn't like to see every single organ article cluttered up like that, but you medics are welcome to have it however you like. What might be of more interest would be a more focussed discussion of evo-devo factors specific to the brain, which could go in a Development section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO, the scope of that section is broad enough to potentially merit its own independent level 2 heading; at the very minimum, the topic deserves inclusion under a level 3 heading, possibly under the "Structure" section. I don't think it's tangential to the topic of the human brain though, as gene and protein expression profiles in the brain is a very notable topic in molecular neurobiology. There have been many studies and reviews on the expression of genes and proteins in the human brain, particularly in relation to viral vector-mediated alterations, brain disorders, drug-induced changes, and environmental influences on their expression.  The latter three of those four are more applicable to the general readership.  I think that would be a worthwhile addition to the article.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: I'll take a look at the current sources that were cited shortly.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article content seems well-written and adequately sourced. IMO, the www.proteinatlas.org database appears to be moderate to high quality based upon comparison of the pages on proteins I'm familiar with and what I know about those proteins (e.g., TAAR1); however, I'd like to ask User:Boghog for his opinion on the quality of that database (particularly https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain) for use as an article citation.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The database is enormously useful in research but must be used with caution (see disclaimer). As far as I know, the database itself has not been peer reviewed, hence it is probably not a good source for Wikipedia. The paper has been peer reviewed, but is primary.  Given the peripheral nature of protein expression to a general article on the brain and the weak sources, I question whether this section should be in this article at all. Boghog (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, I'd agree with you; however, since this article is on track to be an FA and since the topic is an active area of brain research, it'd need to be covered to some extent to satisfy FA criteria 1b and 1c. Perhaps the best thing to do is create a new article on the topic and just cover that topic in this article with a 1 paragraph WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section with appropriate citations. That'd easily satisfy both of those criteria.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I reviewed it. I have higher requirements for ELs than text. If the text and source or okay I am fine with it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Independent review on gene expression in the human brain
Also, I also came across a review which covers gene expression in the human brain that might be useful for expanding that section and/or citing existing content:

 Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you both all weighing in. Thanks very much for the analysis, Seppi. I'll wait and see if anyone else has an opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic seems to be notable enough for mentioning - but I would agree that it needs a little fleshing out. Have had a look at review which offers some useful material and will make some edits soon. Might it be more suitably placed in Microanatomy section? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for this very interesting discussion regarding both content, importance, format and validity of the addition I made under "Gene and protein expression". Being new here, it is educational to see how the community reasons regarding scientific information, COI, primary vs secondary sources etc. I am of course biased having devoted most of my professional life to understanding what underlies the various cell phenotypes one can observe in the microscope. I think such information, as exemplified by my added sentences, is basic and provides a fundament for understanding what are different tissue types and organs really are, what are the similarities and differences between the different cell types we can define through the microscope, what are the tissue type specific genes that correspond to different cellular functions in situ etc. If this deserves a heading of it own, I don´t know, perhaps a subheading under "Structure"? I don´t think it fits under microanatomy, its more of histology with an extra information layer showing mRNA and protein expression data on top of morphology. I feel convinced that the future will add lots of more important and elucidating data that will fit inunder "Gene and protein expression", as technology develops and resolution increases. Thanks for providing the review, which is a couple of years old and includes some of the first RNA-Seq based data from the human brain (Ramskold et al). One could add some conclusions from this and the article could absolutely be cited. I think links to both HPA, GTEx and the Fantom 5 databases (which all include expression data on the human brain), could be added to help readers find sources of the data that lies behind what we know today. Just a word on reliability of Human Protein Atlas as source for knowledge, I think it provides both original data, transparent validation of all methods and reagents used, all human tissues that were used to obtain expression data were carefully examined under the microscope to ascertain representativity and the data is also interpreted in knowledge-based chapters with lots of examples to show proof of concepts. I would think that the broad use, many publications, cross-referencing in other large databases would qualify as more than just a primary source as representing a single study.
 * Thanks again for all input!! Figgep (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Figgep, see what Boghog stated above. See WP:MEDRS. It's one thing to add a primary source, which is an issue per WP:MEDRS. It's another to needlessly add your website. You stated, "I feel convinced that the future will add lots of more important and elucidating data." But we are not supposed to edit based on what the future may bring (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And, yes, I know you told Doc James that it's not your site. But, like he pointed out, you are one of the founders. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Other reviews that cover gene expression in the human brain (2013-2017)
I haven't read any of these, but I'm putting them here for me or others to go through later.
 * 1) - "Gene expression profiling in the human alcoholic brain" (August 2017)
 * 2) *This review is paywalled until August 2018, but the full text is available at
 * 3) - "Gene expression in the aging human brain: an overview" (March 2016)
 * 4) *This review is paywalled, but the full text is available at
 * 5) - "The genome in three dimensions: a new frontier in human brain research" (June 2014)
 * 6) *This review is open access; the full text is available on PMC at
 * 7) - "Human brain evolution: transcripts, metabolites and their regulators" (February 2013)
 * 8) *This review is paywalled, but the full text is available at
 * I also noticed 1 interesting primary source: - "Global gene expression profiling of healthy human brain and its application in studying neurological disorders" (April 2017);
 * This primary source indicates that ~85% of genes are expressed in at least 1 structure/region in the adult human brain based upon a sample of n=12 human brain hemispheres (2 hemispheres from 5 males and 1 female; age range: 24-57). I'm not sure if a sample size of 12 would provide adequate statistical power in that context, but at the very least that 85% value is consistent with the previous study they cited which found that 84% of genes were expressed in at least 1 structure/region in the adult human brain.

 Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Expansion on sensory function
The article is already quite long, but I feel like the sensory functions are skipped over without a lot of coverage. I was wondering how othet editors would feel about additions related to temporal and parietal processing of sensory information.Petergstrom (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @ this is already a very long article that covers a great deal of information. I think this information might be better placed on Sensory system or even Nociception / Mechanoreceptor / Pressure. If you are going to edit this article, I think it might be best given past issues if you first post your planned edits so we can discuss it here first. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Human brain (1st paragraph) & Human brain (1st & 3rd paragraphs)
Can someone proofread the 3 paragraphs listed above in these 2 sections? I recently added/modified content in those sections and they may require copyediting. The 1st paragraph in the metabolism section should be copyedited at some point to improve the coherence/flow of text IMO. I'd do it myself if I weren't a bit tired from editing.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting for Semi-protection?
Hi, we are talking here about a human brain so please portect it from vandlism and Thank You. Kero4000 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The page is already under pending changes protection. Since there doesn't appear to have been major vandalism for a while, this should suffice. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town  ‖ 06:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Can material from the right side of the brain be transferred to the left side.?
Can material from the right side of the brain be transferred to the left side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:202:100:1350:B536:CA38:C1F2:C3B0 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science is the place for questions like this. Article talk pages are intended to be used for discussion related to improving the article. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Paragraphs in lead
Re: and, I made those changes to line breaks between paragraphs in the lead because it looked like something that needed cleanup after some previous reverted edits. In the edit window, I saw some places where sentences started on a new line, but that were not paragraph breaks, and that looked like a mistake to me. I just felt that I should explain that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Your work as always is appreciated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very nice of you to say that. I think everyone who works on this important page is appreciated, and I just felt that maybe it had been unclear so I should explain why I made the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Separating content and WP:INTEGRITY
Regarding this, this and this, like I stated in the first link, when we separate content, such as splitting up a paragraph, we need to make sure that it's still attributed to a source. For example, the "Beneath the cortex is the cerebral" piece currently does not have a source attributed to it. Also see WP:INTEGRITY (about reference integrity). And it's also best to not add in anything unless it's sourced since we will get editors adding "citation needed" tags. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In the "Cerebrum" section, there is currently no source attributed to the following piece: "Beneath the cortex is the cerebral white matter. The largest part of the cerebral cortex is the neocortex, which has six neuronal layers. The rest of the cortex is of allocortex, which has three or four layers."

In the same section, there is currently no source attributed to the following piece: "Some sources include this with the basal ganglia."

My statements on this matter are not meant to offend. They are meant to make sure we keep the article in line with WP:Verifiability, WP:INTEGRITY, and keep people coming in and adding a "citation needed" tag because they don't know if the material is correct and/or because they simply like to see every aspect of an article sourced, especially if it is a WP:GA. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Made the two minor edits as reported. Wouldn't it have been simpler to repair these yourself Flyer, rather than take time out to give editing tuition to an experienced editor.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not when I'm busy. I watch and edit a lot of articles on a given day, and, due to my huge watchlist, have a lot to catch up on when I go two days without editing Wikipedia. I did note that I would take care of the two pieces if no one else did. But I'm not going to always know which source supports what, especially if I don't have access to the source. So I am likely to add a different source in some cases. And I left in the unsourced piece in case you wanted to source it or I found a source for it. Also, I stated what I stated because you have moved around things before in a way that takes the text away from the source. I've done it. So have others. It's not always about how experienced an editor a person is. Furthermore, some experienced editors are more familiar with some policies or guidelines than others. Some have never seen the WP:INTEGRITY guideline, for example. Occasionally, you have also added unsourced material because it seems like a WP:Sky is blue case or because it's something you know and have not yet sourced. Again, a lot of experienced editors have done this. I'm of the opinion that "sky is blue" material doesn't need sourcing, but the vast majority of information about the brain is not "sky is blue" material. The reason I noted that "my statements on this matter are not meant to offend" is so that you would not take offense. I am not attacking you. I am never trying to attack you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can handle being attacked but dislike being patronised which rightly or wrongly came across. anyway Best --Iztwoz (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely didn't mean to come across as patronizing, Iztwoz. Sorry about that. In my "09:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)" post, I was going to note that I didn't mean to come across as condescending if I did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What?!
What on earth do you mean by "greater mammals"? (under Comparative anatomy). "Greater" is not a scientific term: greater than what? And would need a source. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I trimmed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead refactoring
Hi folks, I'm thinking about refactoring the lead section (possibly working with in tandem with a new editor). To quote Manual of Style/Lead section: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Looking at the introduction to Human brain, there are six paragraphs with a lot of jargon. In its current form, it seems like a really poor introduction to the "Human brain" for many less advanced readers. Before I embark on this work, a few questions: I may provide more specifics before I start editing, but I'll be sure to check this talk page before I make changes to the article. -- RobLa (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there material currently in the lead section that simply must remain in the lead section?
 * My instinct would be to move the extra material out of the lead and into the body somewhere, but is there extraneous material that we can simply delete?
 * Are there regular editors on this article that have a strong objection to a newcomer editing this article?
 * Hi, there are a couple of regular editors here including myself and some you can see in the archives who I'll ping if required. We brought this article to GA a couple of years ago. This is a long and technical article, covering broad subject matter, and we've endeavoured to try and put enough content in the lead to achieve coverage of the major contents of this subject, and previously it's been difficult to trim the lead without missing out on some important sections (like, what is the brain, what does it do, what diseases affect it, and its importance in philosophy). I'm a huge supporter of simplification where possible (and wrote an essay on it: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY) but I would caution you that if you are planning on making changes to the lead, which has received a fair bit of editing, I'd implore you to make sure you are not destroying or altering the meaning of the text when you simplify it (which does occasionally happen when things are oversimplified). I absolutely invite you to edit this article, hope this context helps, I'd suggest if you are making major changes discuss them here first but of course that's just a recommendation and you're welcome to do what you'd like. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * GA achieved in 2017?! Hard to believe three years have gone by already, that went really quick... --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead was limited to four paragraphs. But that was changed in 2019; see Talk:Human brain/Archive 3. As for the general rule, it is a general rule, but MOS:LEADLENGTH is clear that it's not an absolute rule and that "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." It also has suggested lead lengths depending on an article's size. The lead needs to adequately summarize the article per WP:Lead. You can discuss here what parts of the lead you think should be cut. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, and . I'm not in a huge rush to change things, so you don't need to worry about me going on an editing spree today.  But it seems to me that the "Human brain" article should have a much simpler, general-purpose introduction that isn't overly intimidating to people who don't have college degrees in neuroscience, per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (WP:MTAU).  It seems like much of the content could be moved down to a new "Overview" section (or to the lead of the current Human brain section, which needs a lead).  It may be that this article needs to be broken up into multiple articles, per Wikipedia:Article size (WP:LENGTH).  Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Class assignment?
Helaine (Wiki Ed), given what is stated here, I have to query this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed) replied here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC) I've updated the image used in this article with the higher resolution image noted on the deletion page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1543,AndreasVesalius'Fabrica,BaseOfTheBrain.png

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MGBare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)