Talk:Synaptotropic hypothesis

Untitled
I would like to make a case for upgrading this topic from ??? to at least low importance in the Neuroscience field. The main problem is that it is an area that has been ignored, more I think because of its obscurity, than because of its importance. What we are discussing here is one of the primary mechanisms by which dendritic selection might be done. We know that dendritic selection happens, and is important to the connections between neurons, however studying the mechanisms of these connections has fallen out of vogue, if only because the individual connections are opportunistic, and are not as important to the structure of the mind, as originally thought by the connectionist school. New work on a Neural Model that incorporates more information on synapse formation, and the neurochemistry of the fibril absorption process would be needed for this topic to have much importance, pending that research this topic has a probable low importance to the Neuroscience field.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done as suggested, and added a couple of basic references that I dug up by a little Google-Scholaring. The topic hasn't really been ignored, as the second ref makes clear, but I can't quite see elevating the importance above Low at this time.  (By the way, ??? only means that nobody has yet evaluated the importance of the article, it does not count as a lower level than Low.) Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to expand and read some more articles on your topic and add them in so you can get a non-biased view with using more information from different places. You also might want to think about adding a discovery or history section on how the hypothesis came to be and other researchers that added to it and how it has developed, if it has. You also may want to put neuronal architecture earlier in the article so people are oriented with how a neuron functions and how it is related to the hypothesis. I also think that the imaging section should be last in the article because it shows that there are ways to visualize the hypothesis but it does not really describe it. It also might help to make the article less biased if you add more to dissenting evidence if that is possible. Rachel Glad (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Rachelglad
 * I see that you've been tweaking the form of the article a bit. If you would like to make any improvements to the content, please go ahead.  Nobody else has done any work on it in a long time. Looie496 (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Review
Good things Improvements
 * good amount of internal links that make helpful clarifications
 * good amount of information
 * go through language and tone throughout article
 * don't have speech in parenthesis, make into a sentence.
 * italicize scientific species, ex. Xenopus laevis
 * rework language of Supporting Evidence section. Info is good, tone and language could be improved
 * expand upon Dissenting Evidence Section
 * pictures? if any could be included, I think it would really contribute to the article
 * if possible, maybe find more sources that either support/do not support the synaptotropic hypothesis (expand the support sections)
 * more sources in general wouldn't be a bad thing

Kaleinonen (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Nielsen Review -You guys did a great job covering a large variety of the subject matter.

Suggestions My suggestions are mostly organizational. I think you guys could consolidate some of the individual sections. For instance, I don't think that imagining techniques needs to be split-up into sub-categories. Also, you guys used subject headers that have lines under them that makes the article look very packed, use those headings for the major topics and use the lower-level headings (these are just bolded) within those subjects. This will make the article not look as choppy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnielsen (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)