Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [1].

Brain[edit]

Nominator: Looie496 (talk)

This article was nominated in March, but it was nowhere close to ready; I was not involved at that time. It has been rewritten from top to bottom over the past month (by me), and is now a completely different article, with far more content. This is the most important Neuroscience-related article on Wikipedia, getting hundreds of hits per day, and it would be very nice to get it to FA status. I believe that it is at least close to being ready. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't the article's protected status mean it fails criterion 1e? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Just because an article is frequently vandalized doesn't mean it's unstable. --Carnildo (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But being protected means that fixes and changes at FAC can't be implemented, which makes improvement hard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Semi-protection doesn't prevent regular editors from editing, but I've asked MastCell to switch the intrusive template to the less intrusive one. No, protection against frequent vandalism doesn't mean an article is unstable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fuchs just thought that the article was fully protected since fully protected articles are usually the ones that have the protection template in large mode rather than small. I've gone ahead and changed it to the small template. Gary King (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Going through the whole article

  • why it there a poetic quote in the lead? IMO, it is not needed there.
If there is consensus against it, I'll remove that quote. But let me note that it has been used very often in popular-level articles and books about the brain. Experience shows its value in getting an image into the mind of the reader. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: since there seems to be consensus, I've removed the quote. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple instances of text sandwiched between image.
I would welcome advice on how to solve this problem. Every change I can think of makes things worse. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section titles like "Structure of the brain" should be renamed as "Structure".
Done. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This article examines the brains of all types of animals, including humans, in a comparative way: it deals with the human brain to the extent that it shares properties with the brains of other species. For an account of features that only apply to humans, see the human brain article." at the end of lead should be at the top, and should be formatted using Wikipedia:Template messages/General : for, otheruses (whichever applicable)
I moved it to the top as requested, but there doesn't seem to be a template message that states the situation correctly. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a little more thought, done as specified, using otheruses4. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page numbers needed for many references, some page numbers are given in Notes, some in References. Shouldn't all page numbers be given in Notes. Also some references give chapter numbers, wouldn't the page numbers, from which the sentence in the article is given, be given? Is searching the whole chapter really necessary for verification?
To the best of my knowledge, all specific page references are given in Notes. The page ranges in References are for journal articles, and are part of the standard citation format. Regarding chapter vs. page references, it's hard to respond fully without an overlong explanation, but the gist of my response is that I don't believe that referencing practices that are appropriate for short articles on very specific topics are appropriate for long articles on very broad topics, where most of the material appears in dozens of textbooks. Where I have used chapters as references, it's because the paragraph or section where they appear summarizes a chapter's worth of material. I don't see how it would be logistically feasible to handle this in any other way. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History of understanding of the brain" ends with Luigi Galvani with died in 1798. Are there no more developments in understanding the brain after 1798? History of the brain discusses more. NOT COMPREHENSIVE.
  • There is [citation needed] tag in Arousal system. I added one in Brain and mind
  • "Here is a list of some of the most important areas" (of the brain), why not all? On basis is it decided which are the most important?
Why not all, because there are literally hundreds of named brain areas. The basis for "most important" is mainly things that get chapters in standard textbooks. You have to bear in mind that nobody really understands how the damn thing works, and it's impossible to make stronger statements without getting into contentious issues that there isn't space to discuss. Even so, I recognize the imperfection of the way this is handled, and would welcome advice on how to handle it better. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some fishes, it is the largest part of the brain" "The brains of monotremes and marsupials are distinctive from those of placentals in some ways, " Which? "In some cases" " to some degree" "In some respects" "a few principles that apply to most of them" "some types of problems" weasel words. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation: Hoping that an expert will check punctuation throughout. IMO there is much over-use of the colon. --Hordaland (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, the curly quotes shouldn't be used.
Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of your book references are going to need page numbers or chapters. For example, the Preissl ref is 274 pages, for WP:V you need to be able to narrow it down within that range somewhat.
  • What makes the Flybrain (http://flybrain.neurobio.arizona.edu/) and the WormBook (http://www.wormbook.org/) refs reliable sources? And they need publishers and last access dates at the very least.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wormbook chapter says at bottom of page that it should be cited thus: This chapter should be cited as: Hobert, O. Specification of the nervous system (August 8, 2005), WormBook, ed. The C. elegans Research Community, WormBook, doi/10.1895/wormbook.1.12.1, http://www.wormbook.org. --Hordaland (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. There was no way to get anything resembling this using any of the "cite" templates, so I had to use "Citation", even though the guidelines recommend against mixing the two types. Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - just starting to look through, I will try to fix simple prose issues and list here ones that are not straightforward. It would be fantastic to get a vital article such as this to FA-standard. More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some primitive animals such as jellyfishes and starfishes... - i am not crash-hot on higher level taxonomy of invertebrate animals, is there some more accurate umbrella grouping-term for all animals without a brain as such?
Well, there is "non-bilaterians", but I would be reluctant to use that term in the lead. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1 of lead could be expanded by a sentence or two on brains in other animals - vertebrates are singled out and brain location explained, but those attributes fit arthropods as well (except that there is an exoskeleton instead of a skull). Maybe a more global overview of which type of animals have heads with brains in them or something.
From a philosophical point of view, it might be said that the most important function of the brain is to serve as the physical structure underlying the mind. From a biological point of view, though, the most important function is to generate behaviors that promote the welfare of an animal. - this could be written more succinctly. My first idea would have changed the meaning and I may revisit it, but it is on hte wordy side.
I agree it's wordy, but it's hard to say it more succinctly without getting some part of it wrong. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of neurotransmitters in lead. Only needs a line, though.
I don't understand where it would go -- please feel free to edit it in yourself. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about how to include it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of seealso sections - seems silly to have nervous system there when bluelinked at very top of article in first sentence. Similarly neuroscience already has a link. nevermind I will remove myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the portal link is supposed to be in a SeeAlso section, but if there aren't some other contents there, the layout gets borked. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is somewhere else it can og at the bottom? Refrence section? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I solved the problem by removing the portal link. Since it hasn't been updated in over a year, it's sort of an embarrassment at the moment anyway. If we can get it reactivated, we can figure out how to link it in at that time. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In many invertebrates—insects, molluscs, worms of many types, etc.—the components of the brain, and their arrangement, differ so greatly - looks unsightly, "many lower animals"? "most invertebrates" or is it all invertebrates?
All invertebrates. I'll try to find some way of wording this that looks less unsightly. Looie496 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been changed to read: For invertebrates—insects, molluscs, worms, etc.—the components of the brain differ so greatly from the vertebrate pattern that it is hard to make meaningful comparisons except on the basis of genetics.
  • Heavy Oppose: There is a lot of useful information, however its structure it is not clear yet and it should be really re-thought for clarity and completeness. I know it is not easy due to the enormous quantity of facets of the theme, as occurs in most vital articles. Also more referencing is needed: they could probably be extracted from the sources already referenced in the article. I am only going to talk here about the most important structure changes. If they are changed I will review again the article but I believe this article is quite far from being of FA quality due to content problems which are clearly more important than minor style issues.--Garrondo (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anatomy: Why is this section not included inside the vertebrates or mammals sections? I do not see the difference of scope of anatomy and principles of brain arquitechture.
Neurotransmitter systems: it is not a function of the brain, but a mechanism that permits its functioning. As such I would remove it from here and add in the first section under a title similar to chemichal functioning
Brains as biological computers: this is neither a function of the brain but a metaphor used to explain how it functions and an approach to study how it works. It has no place in this section, but in the computational neuroscience section.
Brain energy consumption: same occurs with this. Should be moved to a "chemical functioning" section
Communication and high order cognition as a function: The main function of the brain, at least in humans ,is communication and high order cognition, and there is not a word on them in the functions section. Something should be said on language (maybe also on lateralization) and high order cognition (see executive functions, theory of mind...). The only words said on a similar aspect are the mind and brain section, which from my point of view gives an excessive weight to outdated philosophical theories: The brain is anatomical basis of the mind and this is proven (and should be stated). Everything else should be moved to the history section.
history of the brain: First of all I don't like the title: history of the brain is its filogenetical development. It should be historical conceptions of the brain or history of the study of the brain. Secondly such a section can not only include 2 paragraphs, 5 authors and finish in Galvani.


  • Comment: (Does not change my previous oppose vote): I have been thinking on a possible better structure for the first section for an hour. The scope of each of its paragraphs is not clear and it is difficult to follow. I would create 3 different sections. My proposal is as follows:--Garrondo (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macroscopical structure: a small summary of what is going to follow and the paragraph on how to study it (The paragraph that begins as The brain is the most complex biological... )
General structure: The anatomy section with a small paragraph on brain size as an introduction to the other sections that are to come.
ontogenetical development: a small paragraph on its meaning.
Bilateral nervous systems
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
Mammals
Primates including humans
Filogenetical development: actual section on development. (There are no images right now. It would be great to add them)
Microscopical structure
Chemical functioning
Energy consumption
Neurotransmitters
Other for completeness
Brain size section: it is probably to specific (Specially with my proposed structure): I would summarize it to a paragraph and create a secondary article with it (The info is interesting and there is no reason to loose it)
  • Comment - Is that really the best free license image of a brain on the internet? Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but at least it's not as bad as the one in human brain. Anyway, there's a bunch more in Commons -- you can see if there's one you like better. Looie496 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the new image. It looks like it's made of plastic. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They both look like they are made of plastic to me. At least this one doesn't have pixelated edges. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They look like plastic because they're made from fixed tissue, which has the texture of a rubber ball. It's possible to find images made from unfixed brains, but they have a tendency to make some readers queasy. Artistically, the best images are drawings, but they don't convey the same sense of reality as a photo. So the bottom line is that there isn't any perfect solution, as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...they have a tendency to make some readers queasy" Really? They're reading an article on Brains, what would they expect to see? -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not this? "Raw" brain is very hard to work with, because the softness of the tissue makes it very hard to detach the meninges without making a mess. Available pictures tend to come either from surgeries or, like this one, from autopsies. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh lovely! :-) Hmm, I honestly don't know what to suggest here... it's not overly important in the long run I think. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm making my first pass at this article, and I'm noticing several issues that are of concern to me:
  • The quote in the lead. I know someone else brought this up, but I really think it should go. I think the lead should be a review of the article.
Okay, I've removed it. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not big on bullet points in an article. It's good for describing points like in this comment, but I think it is difficult to read as prose. I think each bullet point in Brain#Areas of the vertebrate brain and their functions can be made into a separate paragraph.
  • This is purely a personal point. I really dislike this way of making references. I've already messed it up, and I frankly don't know how to correct it. Hopefully one of you will. I find this type of referencing system antiquated, something you'd find in a textbook. But I'm not standing in the way of progress, just stating I can't edit this article.
I hate it too, but I hate the other method even worse. Wikipedia really needs to support a better way of doing references. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many subdivisions in Structure. Can we break that out?
  • As SG mentioned above, it's a bit of a stylistic jumble. I've been struggling on how to get it right on other articles, but this article needs a WP:ACCESSIBILITY review.
  • Some of the prose is difficult to read. I just copyedited a sentence where the word "dangerous" was used to describe the consequence of comparative primitive to advanced vertebrate evolution. Well, if I were reading an article about the brain, I'd want to know that it's dangerous to drill a hole into the brain. I notice that kind of writing throughout the article. It needs a thorough copyedit.
No doubt, but some of these things are tricky. In this case, for example, you changed it to read, No modern species should be described as more "primitive" than others…, which isn't really correct. A lot of people, including me, think it's ridiculous not to say that a hagfish brain is more primitive than a mammal brain, but there are some evolutionary biologists who balk at that language. Perhaps "controversial" would have been better than "dangerous", though. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think evolutionary biologists look at evolution as not being an improvement in human terms. Maybe we don't even need the sentence at all? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come, but right now, this important article needs some serious work. I can see the quality come through in parts, but not everywhere. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I strongly miss the quote. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with a "poetic quote"--I'd say it's the textual equivalent of a particularly colourful image. Also, the wikilinks to Sherrington and enchanted loom were useful. For reasons that are probably worth investigating, people seem to have strong WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT reactions to poetry (along with Brussels sprouts and disco music), but I see no reason not to complement the scientific with the poetic. Whether or not it belongs in the lead is a different question, but I strongly feel that it belongs somewhere in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The poetry, in my opinion, should not have gone in the lead, but outside the lead in an appropriate place would have been fine. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about at the end of Brain#History? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with this topic, hence why I'm not voting on it. Sorry. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and stuck it at the very end of the article. Feel free to play around with it--it's just too good to exclude entirely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Apart from the Sherrington quote, which I've tacked on to the end of the section, "History" abruptly stops with Luigi Galvani in the 18th century. Perhaps something could be added about more contemporary research?
Yeah, others have made the same point. Looie496 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, perhaps the main article should be renamed from History of the brain to History of brain research? As Garrondo pointed out above, the article doesn't describe the history of the brain per se; it describes the history of our study of the brain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to resist getting sucked into other related articles while working on this one, but I agree with this suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is currently tagged as citation-needed: "Many people have had a strong intuition, or at least a strong wish to believe, that the mind is fundamentally a separate thing, with an independent existence, capable perhaps of detaching from the body and surviving even after death." Does this really need to be sourced? It's your basic dualism, which is discussed later in the section anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and added a couple refs, although I imagine it'd be easy to find about a zillion more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Promising, but it still needs much work. Note that I used this version of the article when citing notes.

  • The dabfinder finds five links to dab pages, Cortex, Magnocellular, Medulla, Membrane and Parvocellular.
  • Note 66 "see Muscle", may need further explanation, where is the referenced sentence ?
  • Note 22 should be moved in the references section, like the other Nature articles
  • Note 84 and 85 need formatting
  • Note 94 has a problem
  • Last two refs need formatting
  • External links need cleanup:
  • A better presentation of the links. Especially, linking relevant articles (for ex. Society for Neuroscience)
  • Is 'Neuroscience for kids' appropriate in lights of WP:LNTBA#1 ?
  • Same about 'The Brain from Top to Bottom' and the 'HOPES Brain Tutorial'.
  • On the other hand, the description of BrainMaps.org is too long.
  • Not sure if sciencedaily is appropriate, as it's a news source.
  • In Further reading, the break "Written for children 8 and older:" is a bit awkward (only one instance), placing it in parenthesis after the relevant entry would be more appropriate.
  • The paragraph on neuroanatomy needs references.
  • In the end of Sensory systems, the recourse to (1), (2), could be avoided.
  • The title 'Areas of the vertebrate brain and their functions' is broken by images.
  • The Refimprove in Vertebrates needs to be fixed.

Some other formating issues pointed out above also need to be addressed. Cenarium Talk 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brain/archive3&oldid=1138456396"