Talk:Human brain/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this. The article is plainly of a high standard but I believe I can make a few useful suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap thank you for taking up this review! I must admit although the article is ready for a review (hence the nomination), I'm not! I'm occupied with another complex review (Myocardial infarction) at present, and nominated this with the expectation in about 4 months someone will finally pick it up! (not 1-2 days!) So, if you have no objections, would you mind waiting 1-2 weeks before I give you a response? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tom (LT) OK, but we need to finish it by 13 July as I turn into a pumpkin or a pair of mice after that in the holidays. This won't be as tricky as the other article, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Extended content

• This is indeed quite a long and complex article on a large subject. Overall it is clear and readable, and the majority of terms are suitably wikilinked and glossed. It is properly structured hierarchically, with many 'main' links to subsidiary articles. The article as a whole cannot be shortened by much and remain as clear as it is.

• One section without a 'main' link is the History; it would be possible to move this to a History of the human brain, leaving a main link and a shorter summary, but the section of some 1150 words, while long enough for a subsidiary article, is not disproportionately long here, so I shall not mandate a split, but am mentioning it as a possibility. It would become mandatory if the history were to be expanded.

• Lead: why are there refs here? The facts cited don't seem specially controversial.

Refs in the lead are in my view unnecessary, since all mentioned items ought to be in the body where refs are needed and used. I shall remove them with the option for somebody else to undo - argue for them --Iztwoz (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You broke the Pocock ref in the text by doing that ... have fixed it for you.

• The pair of images "Structural and functional areas of the human brain" don't match, as the front is to the right of the left image and to the left of the right image! This is needlessly difficult for the reader. It won't be hard to mirror the RH image, keeping the texts reading the usual way... The images also don't match in scale: the brains ought to be the same size (so the label lines on the right should be shortened, and the boldface title inside the RH image should be removed). I've made a flipped and trimmed image for you at File:Blausen 0102 Brain Motor&Sensory (flipped).png.

The changes here are a big improvement --Iztwoz (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

• A general note on style: "These areas have distinct histological differences." means, and would better be expressed as "These areas are distinctly different histologically." or "These areas are distinctly different when seen under a microscope." Similarly "are important in the production of" => "help to produce", and so on. There are many similar instances.

• A general note on grammar: "will give rise to" => "gives rise to"; "will become" => "becomes"; "will use" => "uses"; It's simpler and more direct. There are many instances.

• Imaging: not convinced that 1 main link and 2 further links are justified. Is imaging part of mapping or vice versa? Suggest just one.

• Imaging: "differences in brain area volumes". Eh?

• Why is Neuroscience of rhythm the principal link at head of Regulation? It would be better mentioned briefly and cited in the text. Suggest that section be headed by a main link to Autonomic nervous system.

• Microanatomy: We begin correctly with types of neuron, but then dive straight into types of glial cell. Suggest we connect the 85 billion "non-neuronal cells" with glia et al in a brief lead-in sentence before describing them.

• Microanatomy: the first sentence names 4 cell types (if we count blood vessel). However the list doesn't contain mast cells, described in a lot of detail (WP:UNDUE?), but does mention neural stem cells, not described at all. Need some proportionality here.

• Cerebrum: function of occipital lobe is described twice.

• Lead: the MoS urges 3 or 4 paragraphs. I'm not ideological about this: we should do something sensible here, as it's rather long, close to the "intimidating" mentioned in MOS:LEAD.

Copy-edited.

• Curiously, nerve impulse is nowhere wikilinked and nowhere explained. Needs sorting please.

Society and culture

Extended content

• Society and culture: what is the purpose of the three See also links not connected to any subsection? If these are relevant, then we need a section on each of them, or some may belong in the Mind section, but in that case why does it need so many main/see also links? If they aren't, then delete them, obviously.

• "Aristotle, although mistaken about the function of the brain" is hardly clear. In Aristotle's biology, the seat of sensation was the heart. Further, he thought the brain was a radiator of heat. Perhaps all of this needs to be said explicitly, wikilinked as shown, and cited.

• Modern period: should be illustrated with one of Ramon y Cajal's drawings.

Main reqt is to format all authors same way, we need to get rid of all vauthors, veditors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Society and culture: the section is clear and concise, but it covers only certain aspects of its very broad subject.
  • Pop culture's view of the brain needs some discussion, e.g. of Highbrow, Egghead, Professor Branestawm, Absent-minded professor, Brain in science fiction (suggest you include several of these, with refs).
  • things like game brain
  • phrenology ("bump of direction", etc)
  • recreational drugs through the ages (better be brief on this one...), at least mention Dioscorides and opium

Can find no connection to Dioscorides to this --Iztwoz (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

D's De materia medica identifies opium as causing sleep and easing pain, i.e. affecting the brain. Quote and refs in that article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be more in line with medical use rather than recreational drug use? --Iztwoz (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• The mind: Alzheimer's is quite a technical example for the mind-body argument, and a late one historically, as the injury is invisible to ordinary folks. Similarly with psychedelic drugs and epilepsy, and a vitalist could easily argue against them. Further, why are three examples being thrown at one argument? Perhaps they're not very convincing except to people who're already persuaded. The case of Phineas Gage is historic and clear at the macroscopic level. Suggest use the one example.
  • the need for sleep (does the brain have to rest? why?)

@Chiswick Chap Did you know i already added some to Regulation - --Iztwoz (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC) perhaps this could be moved from metabolism ?--Iztwoz (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Myths section should mention Brain lateralization in popular culture.
• The lead section will need to summarize the Society and Culture section when it has been reworked. Currently it's not even mentioned.

• The mind: is Cognition really in the right place here? It would be better as a 'main' link with its own section, outside the Society section - cognition is a major function of the brain.

Cognition is covered in other sections. Maybe we should choose one of the existing sections and make specific mention of it there? I think that creating a Cognition section might lead to duplication. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anywhere that fits; it may be "covered" but it is barely mentioned and nowhere linked in the functional sections. It seems very odd that a major function of the brain is linked only from the culture & society section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Would fit well in the The mind section. Happy with that? Sorry to Iztwoz and Flyer22 that I have been so useless this review--Tom (LT) (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Glad you're surfacing at last... That's about the only place it's now in, which is within Society & Culture. While Philosophy of mind fits there well enough, the whole of cognition fits there very badly, and as stated above, it's already partly covered in various other sections. It plainly belongs in the discussion of the brain's functions, not its place in culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with your points Chiswick Chap - by the way how do you fix the refs 'globally' as you mentioned? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Tom (LT). We all know that you were busy, like I often am. Good thing that Iztwoz was here to pick up most of the slack. I also see that the lead is now four paragraphs. Good work, everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Small tweaks

Extended content

• A few terms have been put into italics, I've no idea why. Doesn't seem to be systematic.

• "The process is often complicated by problems, including those related to poor communication and preparation of families." Mm. How about "The process is often made more difficult by poor communication with patients' families."

• I know we have to avoid how-to, but "differential diagnoses ... are first excluded." implies that this always happens. Perhaps "... need to be excluded."

• "Other animals have larger brains than humans, including whales and elephants." How about "Other animals, including whales and elephants, ..."  Done

• "though the quotient for a treeshrew's brain is larger than that of a human's." So what? And there's something very wrong with the grammar - let's drop the "that of". How about "than a human's, so absolute size does play some role."

This last para seems divorced from relation of size to IQ as chimps and elephants included but is more a general reflection on brain size to animal size and so to counter the human's claim to have a larger than elephant's ratio the small treeshrew is (was) held up. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it says (feel free to tweak it some more) it must show that it's relevant to the human brain story here.

• "light that hits the retina of the eye, which is transformed into a nerve signal". Light is certainly not transformed. You mean transduced.

• "orexinergic neurons that control arousal" - the basic meaning of orexinergic is controlling appetite. And I guess not sexual arousal.

• "appeared to be involved approach related emotions, " Eh?

Images

Extended content

• Caption "Cortical folds and white matter in bisection of head" should add "horizontal".

• "File:Sobo 1909 624.png" is wrongly dated.

This is the date on the file as given to a vast number of other plates - the date of the publication is given as 1908 - is that what you are referring to? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I meant putting the date in the date field on Commons, which I've now done. Whether '08 or '09 I shan't quibble.

• Image widths vary all over the shop. Preferably use default (no pixel widths set) with |upright for portrait-oriented images and |upright=1.2 or whatever when larger is unavoidable; but at least choose some small set of image widths and stick with them.

• Why is the meninges diagram next to microanatomy?

• Caption "Human brain viewed through a mid-line incision, showing the white matter of the corpus callosum": the brain here isn't incised, it is bisected in the sagittal plane. (If people are leery of the technical terms of orientation, we could include a note, a diagram, or just wikilink them.)

References

Extended content

• Are we using Doe JC, Doe, J. C., or John C. Doe as our author format? Choose one. Suggest first (vauthors common in med. articles) or second (convenient for search with surname first).

• Refs from #CITEREFGray.27s_anatomy2008 (11, 12, 13, 20, 27, etc) do not point to any citation.

• Refs from Guyton & Hall 2006 and Guyton & Hall 2008 do not point to any citation. Seems that Guyton has disappeared from the editorship. However, refs 18 and 19 cite Hall, John (2011), a newer edition. All the other refs to the book need to be updated to the 2011 edition (#CITEREFGuyton_.26_Hall2011) also, i.e. they need their page ranges updated.

• Ref from #CITEREFHarrison.27s2008 (143) does not point to any citation. Needs to be updated to point to Harrison's 2011, i.e. the pages need updating.

(Has been removed.)

• Ref 16 is missing the author.

• I have marked some refs "better source needed".

• Could the multiple refs to Squire 2011 and 2013 be updated to point to a single edition via sfn links to an entry in Sources please.

• Paragraph starting "Many brain disorders are congenital," needs citations.

• Cerebrum: end of para 1, and last para both need sources.

• I have marked some dead links. Only Deadman left.

• I have marked several book refs as "pages needed".

Other discussion

Extended content

::I take it that the unsigned comments above are yours, Chiswick Chap? I wasn't expecting the article to be nominated at this point since an editor noted that more needed to be done first. I also noted that I wanted to add more, but that this shouldn't hold up a nomination. I commented that our leads are typically four paragraphs long, but that this article may be an exception. There have been discussions at the WP:Lead talk page that the lead does not always have to be limited to four paragraphs and the general rule should not be taken to be absolute. So my question is: Should we reduce the lead? And how? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My views are already expressed above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I know; I was simply giving my opinion on the lead, and asking about whether we should shorten it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Reborn, getting ready for an early 2018 GA review I thought I would nominate the article now, I do remember that discussion. I agree with you and do not think the lead is too long. The brain is a rich and complex organ, with a long article, and I think it warrants 5 paragraphs. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tom (LT). I'm not sure if the lead should be reduced. But, yeah, I'm not strongly opposed to it remaining six paragraphs long. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As for creating a History of the human brain article, I don't see that it's needed. I'm generally opposed to splits unless necessary, which is why I cite WP:No split and WP:Spinout when arguing against a split. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I already stated that there is scope for a full (and potentially very long) article on the topic, and that a split is not today mandated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you both here. A split can occur at a later date if needed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, what do you think of this edit I made regarding why the brain wrinkles? For previous discussion on the matter, see this one. I haven't yet added the different hypotheses, but I plan to...if no one beats me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That it is possibly worth a brief mention; that this is a curious moment for introducing it; and that instability (if substantial) is a ground for failing a GAN. If you insist on going ahead, please be rapid, and brief, both in the article and here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

By "a curious moment for introducing it," you mean the timing? As noted in the aforementioned linked discussion, it was there before, and I wanted to add more on it before a GA nomination. I was not expecting the GA nomination to happen without another heads up. There have been no objections to including it. In the aforementioned discussion, Seppi333 stated, "I don't see the harm in saying 'Scientists still do not have a clear answer as to why it later wrinkles and folds, but a number of hypotheses have been proposed.' Stating that the purpose of folding is currently unknown is informative. However, if any hypotheses or further detail is added, it should probably be cited to a fairly recent (i.e., 2015 or newer) neuroscience review to ensure that we aren't adding out-of-date information." I noted that I'm not sure that there are any fairly recent reviews on these hypotheses. There has been no edit warring on the addition. Because the article is stable in terms of changes, except for the changes being made as a result of this GA review, I don't see why the article would need to be failed over this aspect. If by "instability," you were specifically talking about the matter being expanded, I can hold off on expanding it and can do so after the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a little more. I think that is all I will add on the matter for now, but adding more would not be against the stability listing at WP:GA criteria. I'm not sure if I should name any of the examples that the source does with regard to diseases/neurological disorders, since we address this type of thing in the Clinical significance section and I'd rather not WP:Overlink. I also know that there is a push by some activists to not view autism as a disease or disorder; so I am wary of how to categorize it these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

An interesting discussion. I have tried to cover in a short about some developmental disorders and mental health disorders. It is difficult to cover them in great depth because, although they obviously involve the brain, I do not believe the underlying mechanisms are fully understood and I am reticent to speculate on this secondary article... and also cognizant of the implicit bias that we will be implying if we cover these as "brain disorders". --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this secondary article"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I'm not clear on why you've struck through our above comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's because we settled those issues? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I've noticed that you prefer not to use accessdates for book sources. As seen at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 22#Adding access-date parameter to book citations, there is disagreement on whether or not to do so. It seems to be a matter of preference for editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For consistency, and since editors seem okay with forgoing accessdates in this case, I will make sure not to add them when adding book references to this article. That is, unless consensus on the matter changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Summary

This has been more of a haul than I expected, but the article is now clear and readable, well cited, covers the main points, suitably illustrated, and appropriately introduced. I'm therefore satisfied that it is well up to the required standard for GA. If authors are contemplating FAC, be warned that much more attention will be required to satisfy the requirements for referencing and comprehensive coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)