Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cerebellum/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Cerebellum

 * Notified: Looie496, Fnielsen, Iztwoz, Wimpus, WikiProject Anatomy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Medicine [Nominator A314268 and major contributor Nrets are inactive]
 * URFA nom

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted over 9 years ago and has not been reviewed since. In that time it has grown by almost 200%. The article is tagged as needing page number citations and (as noted before) some parts are lacking citations. I shall be going through the article in detail over the next couple of weeks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Quickly scanning the article I immediately noted the "Happiness" section. Supported by a single original study. There needs to be done something with this. Removed? Personally I would also like to see a critical eye "Functional imaging studies have shown cerebellar activation in relation to language, attention, and mental imagery". Given the methodological problems with fMRI I am personally sceptic, although I am not really into the subject. Interestingly the idea of non-motor function of cerebellum goes further back the human neuroimaging  and G. G. Berntson &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had the exact same thought about the happiness section, in fact I almost removed it straight off, but when I checked for references there seems to be other work in the area of emotional function. I'd like to investigate how the topic is treated in reviews. If it is notable, then it ought to be better integrated into the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "Happiness" section, which somehow slipped in while I wasn't watching. Regarding functional imaging, the statements in the article are massively supported by literature.  I too am skeptical about their significance, but the fact is that this stuff has received enormous attention, to such a degree that leaving it out would misrepresent the literature. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Isn't the article too human-centric? Cetacean sh/could be mentioned. . &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is too human-centric. I suppose it would be possible to split off some material into a human cerebellum article, but that doesn't strike me as a good thing overall.  Lots of our readers are specifically interested in humans.  Regarding cetaceans, I don't know anything about their cerebellum, but if there are facts that are important enough to belong in the article, I encourage you to add them. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing that we have done in a number of other anatomical articles is split content into the main article, focusing on the human cerebellum, and then include an 'other animals' section as is done here (this is also part of the manual of style entry). This structure is particularly useful when the majority of sources and studies used are focused on the human structure, when users expect to read about the human structure in the main article, or when it is confusing to be constantly comparing the structures of different species throughout the article. That said, it might not be as relevant for a well fleshed-out article like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) What about Cerebellar hypoplasia and Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human)? &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a rare condition in humans at least, but it could be worked into the "Cerebellar agenesis" section, which is another low-quality thing that crept in without me noticing it. I'll see what I can do with that. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion may be a 'congenital abnormalities' subsection covering agenesis and hypoplasia and any other abnormalities. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Background: Let me fill in some history here. This article was promoted in 2005, but when I came to it a few years later, it was obvious to me that it was nowhere near FA quality.  The cerebellum is not the brain area I work on, but I have long been fascinated by it and know the literature pretty well, so I decided to rewrite it.  I did so in late 2009, to such a degree that the current article bears little resemblance to the version that was promoted.  Early in 2010 SandyGeorgia did an extensive style review, making numerous changes.  Since then the article has been pretty stable.  I've tried to keep an eye on it, but my attention hasn't been constant, and no doubt I've missed a few things.  In particular I didn't see the "Happiness" section show up -- I'm about to remove it as undue.  In any case, and FA review is welcome -- with the caveat that I have no intention of wasting my time on minor style issues. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your attention Looie496 and for raising this, DrKiernan. I work a fair bit on anatomy articles with WP:ANATOMY and stated earlier that I think this article is lacking sources and sometimes a little nonstandard (like heaps of images of cerebellar cross-sections which are quite large by wiki-standards). I've been hesitant to make edits because the article does have FA status, but I'll also have a look. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think then that we should cut File:Sobo 1909 657.png? It seems to show much the same features as File:Sobo 1909 658.png, but 658 shows all four nuclei. DrKiernan (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you all can get the substantial matters cleaned up (prose, sourcing, flow, etc), I'll be glad to go in and "waste my time on the minor style issues", but it's not worth doing that kind of cleanup until/unless the bigger stuff happens. Ping me if all else is settled, and minor style stuff is needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Queries
 * 1) In the "Subdivisions" section, the sentence "There is another small region, known as the biventer lobule." appears like an afterthought. Is there a better way to integrate it into the paragraph? DrKiernan (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, what the hell is that? I've never even heard of it.  I'll try to figure out what is going on.  (We have an article on the biventer lobule, but it lists no sources except Gray's Anatomy.)  I suspect that there is really no need to mention something so obscure. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it out to Anatomy of the cerebellum. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) In the paragraph on "Divergence and convergence", have I read correctly that 200 million inputs is considered "modest"?
 * Well, the number of parallel fibers is over 100 times larger. But perhaps "modest" is not quite the right word. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I only have two unresolved comments, one above in "Queries" about use of the word "modest" and one on the talk page (in Talk:Cerebellum). I consider both of these minor, and they do not threaten the featured status of the article. I'm happy for this review to be closed without a FARC stage. Many thanks to the editors who helped, contributed and commented. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I anticipate we'll be able to keep this without a FARC, but I just quickly glanced at a few sections and see copyedit needs; I will work on it over the next few days. Also, a few questions that might be able to resolve: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do we have three (old and incomplete) items by the same author listed in Further reading?  If the three of those are worthy of keeping, they need to be completed, but it "smells" like someone pushing one author's work added all of them.
 * See also is typically not needed when an article is comprehensive. Why are those items there, and can those be worked into the article?
 * I am seeing many incomplete citations.
 * I removed the Further reading section. There are a few other things -- major books -- that might be more appropriate there, but I think we can live without it.  I also removed two of the See Also items.  The "cerebellar theory of dyslexia" is actually notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article, but not so important as to be essential, so it means to me reasonable to leave it there.  Regarding incomplete citations, is that just about page numbers, or something more? Looie496 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many times, page numbers from the History section, but also some incomplete things, eg, what is happening here?
 * Eccles JC, Ito M, Szentágothai J (1967). The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine. Springer-Verlag.
 * The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine, p. 311
 * Also, there are many instances of text sandwiched between right and left images. Are all of those images necessary, and can any of them be moved down?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, flow needs to be checked. Marr and Albus are explained in detail in the Learning section, but are mentioned first in passing before that, in the Climbing fibers section.  I will get through the article, but it would help,, if you would re-read for things like this, since you know the topic much better than I do.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

i noticed the article does not directly touch upon the topic of Autism and the Cerebellum, perhaps you might contemplate this reference and a mention--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * is a primary source, so would not meet WP:MEDRS (and its inclusion would probably be undue). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I could find an appropriate secondary source/review article (however you state its undue)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * is a recent secondary review, but specific to autism. So the question for someone who has the sources is, do broad overviews of the cerebellum mention autism?  And if so, do they include an all encompassing list of every condition that affects the cerebellum?  If so, something could be worked in around this part of the article:
 * The list of medical problems that can produce cerebellar damage is long: including stroke, hemorrhage, tumors, alcoholism, physical trauma such as gunshot wounds, and chronic degenerative conditions such as olivopontocerebellar atrophy.[3] Some forms of migraine headache may also produce temporary dysfunction of the cerebellum, of variable severity.[39]
 * It is troubling that our "list of medical problems" is from a 1985 source; we should update that. What do more recent sources say about the number of conditions and medical problems involving the cerebellum, and do they include autism?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * you are correct, in so far, as Autism (beside the secondary source and the "primary" which could go a long way) there is not a lot more. However, to your more general question, as to more recent (non-1985) this might do the trick, if not I will search again, this is very interesting, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * here is another, just found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The conclusions of are somewhat unconvincing, but someone from WP:MED is going to need to review this article for comprehensiveness; the 1985 source is not optimal, and we need to know what role the cerebellum has across the board in medical conditions.  Additionally problematic-- the 1985 source is cited 12 times. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * will this help"across the board " I found a few you might want to look at (keeping in mind im pulling for Autism), there is this on Schizophrenia, looks interesting, there is also dyskinesia, we have dystonia  and finally,  which might merit though congenital . I would be very happy to help in any way , --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * these additional ones deal with Parkinson's and TARPs--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would please provide PMID links, it would be easier to check those. You only need enter PMID followed by the identifier (4-digit) number; from the PMID link, one can easily see what kind of paper it is.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding autism, and to a lesser extent some of the other conditions mentioned here, the basic issue is that it often appears in people who have severe developmental disorders. Those disorders often produce widespread alterations in brain structure.  Thus there is a statistical correlation between autism and development-related cerebellar dysfunction.  But does the cerebellar pathology play a causal role in the social-interaction problems that lies at the heart of autism?  There is very little evidence to support that idea, in my reading of the literature. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is also my impression, but I am still concerned that we need to update the 1985 source throughout, and find one source that says what conditions/diseases are involved with the cerebellum. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember doing some MOS work on this...just looked up when, and it was *2008*, yeesh. The references look good, with the exception of the incomplete cites of The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine. I think that the Clinical significance section could do with some reorganization and possibly doesn't need the four subsection headers. I will take a stab at rewriting that section in a sandbox tomorrow, and link it here. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and other editors for participating. I agree the clinical significance section needs reorganizing and copyediting, the structure at the moment is strange and certainly the hatnote should not point to 'main' as 'ataxia'. I'll see if I can help out with this section on your draft. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to say that I've almost got something comprehensible drafted—sorry for the delay, and hope to have something to show for it shortly. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This FAR has been up for six weeks. , where do we stand on Clinical significance and list of medical conditions (now sourced to a 1985 book)? Also, there are a number of images crammed in to the top part of the article, with numerous instances of text sandwiched between images, while the bottom of the article seems to be relatively bare of images; could someone address the text sandwiched between images. Move to FARC to keep the process on track; it has been six weeks, and issues have not yet been addressed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been having trouble finishing my work on this because I just 'upgraded' to multifocal contacts and I can't flipping see! My distance vision is great, and I can read the computer screen with effort, but changing focus back and forth from printed material to a screen is just not happening yet. I switched to glasses tonight and made some progress on my draft; you can see it here. Maralia (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This nom has been up for two months; could it be moved to FARC to keep the process on track and to get more feedback? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Concerns raised above include missing citations (please tag these) and reliable sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The section on tumors could do with a few more sentences (and citations). I might have a look myself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delist. OK, I'm going to be bold here and say delist despite all the work that's been done (including by me) and my earlier comment above that the review could "be closed without a FARC". Since my last comment, citation needed tags have appeared and the clinical significance section needs to be sorted out. We (User:Looie496, User:Casliber, User:Maralia, User:LT910001, User:Fnielsen) need to decide whether to cite or cut the tagged sentences and whether to keep the current medical section or replace it with Maralia's. I need you biology experts to finish off the last few bits so I can scratch out my delist! DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that Maralia's draft is usable, except that a few parts need to be translated from Medicalese into Ordinary English. Most of the CN tags can be replaced with references to the Cerebellum chapter in Synaptic Organization of the Brain.  Let me note that the basic facts about cerebellar anatomy, physiology, and pathology have been understood for many decades, and aren't going to change, so a demand for recent sources doesn't really make sense.  It just means changing the reference from one textbook to a newer textbook.  Once you've reached the point where all the usable references are tertiary sources, it doesn't do any good to be picky. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , OK, I'll take your word for it that we need not replace the older sources, so where do we stand on Maralia's draft? It's time to get this thing closed one way or another, and you're the content expert here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay for me to copy Maralia's draft and rework it? I'm usually reluctant to step on people's toes that way. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so considerate, Looie, but you're quite welcome to save me from myself :) Maralia (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've fixed the CN tags, most of which are there because I was trying to avoid repeating the same citation for several sentences in a row. I have also added Maralia's material and integrated it.  As far as I know that fixes the outstanding issues. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. All identified issues addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

, if Clinical significance is now comprehensive, why do we have still what looks like two stragglers in "See also"? If those are significant, should they not be incorporated into the article? If they are not, why are they in See also? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cerebellar theory of dyslexia
 * Intention tremor


 * I wasn't paying attention to that part of the article. I added a wikilink to intention tremor where it is mentioned in the text (more precisely, I changed "tremor" to "intention tremor" and wikilinked it), and I removed "Cerebellar theory of dyslexia", as that is basically a minimally notable fringe theory that would be UNDUE in the article.  Since there was nothing left in it, I then removed the "See Also" section. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks good to go, then.  Keep.  Thank you for the effort, Looie!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.