Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4

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 Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 [1].

---

Brain

Brain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Brain/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Brain/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Brain/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is ready. I have addressed all the issues that caused the previous nomination to fail, and made many other improvements as well. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - good job for taking on such an important article, but more work is needed. The most concerning deficit is the low citation density - a significant amount of material appears to be unsourced. The citations that are present need to be more consistently formatted, and some are incomplete (ex FNs 21 and 24). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll add the comment that, to me at least, the number of citations looks to be good, but there are several paragraphs where the final sentence(s) are not referenced. The authors might take a look at citing those entries. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There is very little unsourced material in the article -- I would like to say none, but I'm not perfect so that would surely be an overstatement. I have never found a referencing strategy that makes it 100% clear which references apply to which sentences without repeating refs for every sentence -- something I am very reluctant to do. In a few places where sourcing seemed especially unclear I resorted to "bracketing" a passage with a ref at the beginning and a repetition at the end, but in most places the ref that applies to a sentence that does not have a ref of its own is the last ref before it. I can easily add repeat refs at the end of paragraphs if there is consensus that that's the right solution. Looie496 (talk)

This concern has been addressed. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is thoroughly sourced, but often the citation is at the beginning of a string of sentences it supports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have now made an attempt to move all refs to the end of the set of sentences they support. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Nothing approaching this level of detail is available for any other organism" - source?

Hmm. This is so well known in the field that none of the basic sources bothers to say it. I'm sure there are sources but I'm not really sure how to search them out -- it's sort of like searching for a source for the fact that the earth only has one moon. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Update -- I finally found an article in the Encyclopedia of Genetics that makes a direct statement about the uniqueness of C. elegans, and added it as a ref. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how initials are punctuated

I believe they are all unpunctuated now. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 8: missing initials

Fixed, I guess -- not sure what ref this was but nothing in that neighborhood lacks initials now. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author/editor works are notated

I believe I have changed everything to last-first form now, except possibly a couple where CitationBot generated code that I don't understand. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether journal names are abbreviated and if so how

I changed them all to unabbreviated form, except Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, which I abbreviated Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B (Biological Sciences), which I abbreviated Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B (Biological Sciences). Is that good enough? Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and stray hyphens

I went through all the refs and didn't see anything like that, but I'll give another scan. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates

All now have access dates. The FlyBrain site is itself a publisher -- its existence is the fact that supports the statement in the article. As for WormBook, I don't know how to handle it: it shares aspects of a website, book, and journal, and none of our cite templates seems to deal with it perfectly. In other parts of the article I cited information from WormBook articles using "cite journal" templates, but here the reference is to the fact that WormBook exists. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 32, 34, 36, 71, 79, 81, 82, 84, 123, 127, 134, 139: page(s)?

They all now have either page ranges or chapter titles. All of those are references for broad generalities that basically sum up the message of a whole book or a major part of a book, so they are not easy to pin down to a specific page -- furthermore I don't actually have any of those books on hand and have had to make due with info from Google Books or other web resources. But I think it ought to be okay. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

I think there was only one error, and I have fixed it -- none are hyphenated now. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers

None have locations now. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publishers for journals

No journals have publishers now, I believe -- only books. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you notate editors of larger works (ie. "In...")

I think this is now consistent but I'm not sure I fully understand what the cite templates do with editors. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent notation for editions

I don't know what this is referring to, but I'll try to spot it. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Use consistent naming - for example, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins vs Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Fixed, I think, unless I overlooked something. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 73, 75: formatting

Both fixed. (Swaminathan and Safi, in case you forget.) Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• FN 74: are you missing a chapter number or title here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the few refs added by somebody other than me, and I don't have the book, but I heroically managed to get it from Google Books's snippet view ("Metabolism of the brain"). So it's fixed now. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Imazdi 1979

Comment—the citation formatting is inconsistent, and in at least one case, incorrect.

• With respect to how authors' names are rendered, there is much inconsistency. Most of them are of the form "<last> <initial(s)>" and use commas to separate between multiple authors, while some are "<last>, <inital(s)>" and use semicolons to separate between mulitple authors. It appears that you have used citation templates, but in many cases used |author= rather than using the separate |last#= |first#= to generate the author lists. The latter method, personally, would be preferable since it would ensure that formatting stayed consistent and the COinS metadata would be consistent and correct as well.

I have converted them all to last-first form for at least the first author. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• The date for the Hippocrates citation is formatted wrong. Per MOS:DATE: "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods (full stops), and separated from the year number by a space or non-breaking space."

Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Footnotes 21 (FlyBrain) and 24 (WormBook) need publisher information, publication date (if applicable), author(s) (if applicable), and an access date for each.

FlyBrain and WormBook are essentially publishers; their existence is the fact that supports the statements in the article. Referring to them is like referring to Wikipedia as a whole. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm taking no position on the academic practice to use only first or first and middle initials for authors, but since you are using that convention, footnote 52 should be changed to follow it for consistency. Currently, the citation lists "Gerhard Roth und Ursula Dicke" as the author, but that should be "Roth, G(erald); Dicke, U(rsula)". In German, "und" means "and", so you have two names there in "<first> <last>" order, which doesn't follow the formatting of the rest.

I had missed that one. Now fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Footnotes 53, 54 and 128 have full first names. Like I mentioned above, I would convert them to first initials for consistency unless you're going to add full first names to the other citations.

Fixed, I think. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Footnotes 71 and 92 should indicate that it is a PDF using the |format= parameter of the template.

Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Footnotes 91 and 93 should have a publication date (if applicable) and an access date.

I can't find a publication date -- this online textbook is actively maintained so I'm not sure one would be meaningful. I have added accessdate parameters to both cites. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lastly, why are the shortened footnotes that refer to Principles of Neural Science and Principles of Neural Development using the book title instead of the author names? I thought that it was standard to use the author names?

Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Principles of Neural Science is a graduate-level textbook edited by Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessel, with most of the chapters written by specialists. Citing it as Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessel would therefore be misleading, I think. The other one could be cited as Purves and Lichtman, but the name of the book seems likely to be more meaningful to readers. I will change this if you think it is important. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The referencing appears inadequate, though discussion above indicates that it may simply be non-standard. It is standard to footnote a source for a clause, sentence, or paragraph at the end of that clause, sentence, or paragraph. By not following that standard, it becomes impossible to effectively determine the correct source for a given statement. I cannot support this article until it can be determined whether or not each statement is backed up by the source given. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now moved all refs to the end of the range of text they support (adding a few in the process). Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "In vertebrates, the brain is located in the head, protected by the skull and close to the primary sensory apparatus of vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell."

Does this imply that in (some) invertebrates, the brain is not located in the head? Not protected by the skull? Not close to the sense organs? (I know the answers, but these need clarification.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually see why this needs clarifying, and don't see how to do it without looking silly. I will admit that I don't like the sentence all that much, and would welcome improvments. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How about: "The brain is located in the head, usually close to the primary sensory apparatus such as vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell. In vertebrates, the brain is protected by the skull." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have followed your suggestion but omitting the second sentence, which seems unnecessary and somewhat breaks the flow.Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "From an evolutionary-biological point of view, the function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body."

Is it really helpful to include the first part of that sentence: "From an evolutionary-biological point of view"? Why not just say "The function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body." The following paragraph discusses the philosophical implications. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable without some qualifier. The notion of a function implies a purpose or goal. Viewed as a physical object, a brain does not have a purpose -- it is only evolutionary theory that justifies assigning a purpose to organs of the body. I might be over-thinking this, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The mechanisms by which brain activity instantiates consciousness and thought have been very challenging to understand."

I had to look up the meaning of "instantiate". Is there a simpler word? I couldn't find one in a thesaurus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "gives rise to", which may not be perfectly ideal, but hopefully is close enough. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Cellular structure", paragraph 3: "Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses."

I think that this terminology is slightly loose. From Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary: "Synapse: the minute gap across which nerve impulses pass from one neurone to the next, at the end of a nerve fibre." From Guyton & Hall's Textbook of Medical Physiology, 21st edition, chapter 45, page 557: "The synapse is the junction point from one neuron to the next." The junction of motor neuron and muscle fibre is properly called the neuromuscular junction. From Guyton, chapter 7 (Excitation of Skeletal Muscle: Neuromuscular Transmission and Excitation-Contraction Coupling), page 85: "Each nerve ending makes a junction, called the neuromuscular junction, with the muscle fiber near its midpoint". Other postganglionic efferent neurons, such as those of the autonomic nervous system, have junctions that are usually called "neuroeffector junctions". Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've finessed this issue by removing the phrase "or to non-neuronal cells". I'm pretty certain that the majority of neuroscientists would consider the neuromuscular junction to be a type of synapse, but there is no reason to argue about it, since the sentence does its job without that phrase. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Primates": "Although dolphins have values that approach the human level." Does the dolphin's EQ of 4.14 really approach that of humans? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "Dolphins have values higher than those for any primates other than humans...". Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a general comment regarding the inline citations. I agree with RJHall; there are several paragraphs where the final sentence isn't referenced. Unlike Nikkimaria, I don't have a problem with the citation density per se. I am sure that Looie496 has ensured that all of the text can be justified from the reliable sources. However in several places, the source is not indicated. I could go through the article and place "citation needed" tags, but I'm not sure how constructive that would be. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now tried to move all refs to the end of the range of material they support. If there is still material whose sourcing is unclear, cn tags would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference placement looks fine now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Anatomy", subsection "Primates": "The other part of the brain that is greatly enlarged in primates is the prefrontal cortex, which carries out functions that include planning, working memory, motivation, attention, and executive control." This sentence is rather awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten that paragraph. Does it work now? Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Physiology": "Neurons are electrically active cells." Aren't all cells electrically active? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No. All cells are electrically charged, but most maintain a membrane potential that is either constant or else changes slowly. I'll see if I can come up with a wording that clarifies the distinction here. Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the sentence as "The functions of the brain depend on the ability of neurons to transmit electrochemical signals to other cells, and their ability to integrate electrochemical signals received from other cells." Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Physiology", subsection "Neurotransmitters and receptors", paragraph 2: "The two neurotransmitters that are used most widely in the vertebrate brain are glutamate, which almost always exerts excitatory effects on target neurons, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which is almost always inhibitory." Is the disclaimer "almost always" really necessary? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I know the answer, and some sort of qualifier is indeed needed. There is an inhibitory subtype of glutamate receptor, and GABA can be excitatory during embryonic development. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Physiology", subsection "Metabolism": "The brain consumes up to twenty percent of the energy used by the human body, more than any other organ. Although the human brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization." This information is specific to the human brain. I expect that the energy use of non-human brains is much lower. Without the context of non-human brain metabolism details, I don't think that these human-centric stats should be in this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I added that material in response to a request from reviewer RJH, below, so I really don't know what I should do here. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked RJH about this; here is his response: "Hi Axl. Well yes I agree. What I requested was some information on the brain's energy usage, with the idea that it would show how that effects the evolutionary development of large brains. The nominator chose to use the human-specific information, but I think it could (and probably should) be modified to talk about any animal with a large brain (given suitable sources). Regards, RJH"

Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now rewritten this section almost entirely, to make it more complete and less human-centric. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Functions": "To generate purposeful and unified action, the brain brings information from sense organs together at a central location, processes it to extract meaningful information from the raw data, combines the sensory information with information about the current needs of an animal and with memory of circumstances from the past, and generates motor response patterns that are suited to maximize the welfare of the animal." Can this long sentence be shortened/split? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have broken it up into four shorter sentences -- tell me if it works better for you. Please feel free to edit it if you see any way of improving it. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (I have made a couple of minor changes.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Functions", subsection "Motor control": "Except for the muscles that control the eye, which are driven by brainstem nuclei, all the voluntary muscles in the body are directly innervated by motor neurons in the spinal cord." I don't think that's right. There also also other motor cranial nerves: facial, glossopharyngeal, vagus, hypoglossal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Axl is right - none of the Cranial nerves arise from the spinal cord (apart from a bit of XI) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This was a misreading of the source on my part. I've rechecked, and rewritten the sentence to correct the error. It now says, "Except for the muscles that control the eye, which are driven by nuclei in the midbrain, all the voluntary muscles in the body are directly innervated by motor neurons in the spinal cord and brainstem". Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Functions", subsection "Motivation", paragraph 1: "The motivational system works largely by a reward-punishment mechanism." Should this be an endash? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'll take your word for it -- changed as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several historical comments in the body of the article. While these may be appropriately placed for an essay or a review article, I think that they would be better in the "History" section of this encyclopedic article.

• From "Anatomy", subsection "Invertebrates", there is extended discussion around Sydney Brenner and Eric Kandel.
• From "Functions", subsection "Information processing", much of the first two paragraphs should be in the "History" section.
• From "Functions", subsection "Arousal", paragraph 3 mentions 1950s knowledge.
• From "Functions", subsection "Homeostasis", Claude Bernard's milieu intérieur.
• From "Functions", subsection "Learning and memory", includes historical information.
• From "Research", paragraph 2, details of older 20th century techniques.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here I'm going to balk. These are areas where it seemed to me that a good understanding of the current state of knowledge requires knowing something about the past. If the historical information is simply removed from those sections, I don't think they will work as well for readers. I am open to suggestions about how to reframe those sections, but simply extracting the historical information doesn't seem viable. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Research", paragraph 3: "Recordings of brain activity can be made using electrodes, either glued to the skull as in EEG studies, or implanted inside the brains of animals for extracellular recordings." In humans, EEG electrodes are affixed to the scalp, not the skull. (I don't know if the skull is used in animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, that was just a brain glitch on my part -- now changed to "scalp". Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Good pun :-) Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From the same paragraph: "It is also possible to study brain activity noninvasively in humans using functional imaging techniques such as MRI." In humans, EEG is almost always non-invasive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the emphasis in that sentence didn't come through as I intended. I have rewritten the sentence as, "It is also possible to study brain activity using functional imaging techniques such as Functional magnetic resonance imaging—these techniques have mainly been used with human subjects, because they require a conscious subject to remain motionless for long periods of time, but they have the great advantage of being noninvasive." Does that work? Looie496 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have adjusted the syntax of the sentence. There is no reference at the end of the sentence; I wonder if it was lost in the wash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but in any case I've now added a reference for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From "History", paragraph 4: "Reflecting the new understanding, in 1942 Charles Sherrington visualized in somewhat breathless terms the workings of the brain waking from sleep." "Breathless terms"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As in purple prose. I realize that phrase is slightly nonencyclopedic, and I'll remove it if you think it is preferable. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted that introductory phrase. I have left the quotation itself intact. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the references to Principles of Neural Science and Principles of Neural Development are only chapter numbers, without page numbers. Why is this? (I can try to get hold of these books and dig out the page numbers if that would be helpful.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

All of those textbook references are in support of broad generalizations that are verifiable using any decent textbook on the topic, and in my view a reader who feels a need for more information is better served by reading the chapter than by looking for a specific sentence or paragraph that duplicates the information in the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of citations in Wikipedia is for verifiability rather than directing the reader to a source of extra information.

I now have a copy of Principles of Neural Science. The first instance of a "chapter reference" is from "Anatomy", subsection "Cellular structure", paragraph 3. I have added a page number citation to the first part of the paragraph. Ironically, the second part of the paragraph makes no mention of electrical synapses, despite this being one of the first points of the chapter. There is also information there that could be included in the "History" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Following this message from Looie496, I have decided to withdraw from this FAC. It is clear that Looie496 and I have significant disagreements regarding layout, style and referencing, which will not be reconciled during this FAC. I have tried to make constructive comments, and I have made several edits to the article itself. I am aware that other editors already support the article in its current state, and I submit to the consensus.

As a final request, I would ask that Looie496 reviews my comment regarding motor neurons from the spinal cord; I believe that the article's statement is factually incorrect. I shall take no further part in this FAC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish you would reconsider. I really appreciate the work you have put into this and have found your comments to be very valuable, and I have complied with most of your requests. I am reluctant to follow a couple of requests, and have tried to explain why, but I have not actually refused. I intend to fix the problem regarding motor neurons -- you're right that the current wording is incorrect, but replacing it with correct wording is nontrivial. I am also working on a rewrite of the Metabolism section, which is not easy for me because biochemistry is by no means my strongest area. Let me also note that at this time there are only two editors on record in support of promoting the article, which is not what I would call consensus, so your views are by no means irrelevant. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concerns were addressed and I think this article is FA worthy. There may be other issues to be identified, but the nominator has shown a willingness to address the remaining problems. Good work. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Comments—It's a good article and I enjoyed the read. I think with a little fine tuning it can be an FA. Here's a few observations:

• As mentioned earlier, there is an issue with the placement of the sources. They should be located at the end of the text they reference. See "Perception", "Arousal", "Development", and so forth.

I have now done this as requested. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I see frequent use of the spaced em-dash. These should all be unspaced em-dashes. See MOS:EMDASH.

This sort of thing is very frustrating. Whatever I do, people tell me I should do the other thing. I personally don't care one way or the other. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, well I think first and foremost it's good to be consistent. The article mixes the two forms; I'd just stick with the unspaced em-dash and point people to the MoS if there is an issue. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed all instances to unspaced em-dashes. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. RJH (talk)

• What does the following statement have to do with the subject? Also, it's expressing an opinion, so it should be sourced.

  Many biologists dislike the term "invertebrate" (which includes all animals that are not vertebrates) because it is not a monophyletic category — that is, it does not describe a group of animals all derived from a common ancestral form.

That sentence is sourced, to a textbook that explains the problems with the word "invertebrate". I originally had the reference attached to the first sentence of the paragraph; somebody moved it to the last sentence. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what does it have to do with the brain? RJH (talk)

Well, not much. There are three words that make biologists see red -- "primitive", "worm", and "invertebrate" -- and I have a sort of defensive reflex whenever I feel compelled to use one of them. But I've now removed it -- damn the torpedoes! Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, might I suggest making it a footnote? RJH (talk)

My personal view is that footnotes don't work very well with Wikipedia's referencing scheme, because the reader has no way of distinguishing a footnote reference from a source reference without looking at it. I am happy to leave it as is -- we can always revisit the issue if somebody complains. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. RJH (talk)

• "The brain of the octopus in particular is highly developed, comparable in complexity to the brains of some vertebrates." Isn't this true of cephalopods in general? (Cf. Cephalopod intelligence.)

I don't know for sure; I'll see if I can find out. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence -- I can't find a source that directly supports it, although there are many sources that seem to support it implicitly. I modified the previous sentence slightly as well. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's regrettable. However, the current wording does seems to cover the topic fairly well and the Cephalopod intelligence article indicates that the topic of cephalopod intellectual capabilities remains controversial. Perhaps it's best then. Thanks. RJH (talk)

• "Remarkably, many aspects of Drosophila neurogenetics have turned out to be relevant to humans." Why is this remarkable?

Well, remarkableness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Many people find it remarkable that closely related genes are involved in shaping the brains of humans and fruit flies, whose last common ancestor was a wormlike thing that existed over 500 million years ago. Even so, the word can be dropped if you are unhappy with it. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A reason why I have a minor concern here is that the word implies there is additional information that is not being supplied to the reader. For example, does it mean the same as the following?

"Remarkably, despite having a nearly independent evolutionary lineage, many aspects of Drosophila neurogenetics have turned out to be relevant to humans."

RJH (talk)

I have replaced "remarkably" with "in spite of the large evolutionary distance between insects and mammals..." Will that work? Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That works. Thank you. RJH (talk)

• "and examined in hundreds of experiments" It is unclear how this is connected with the remainder of the sentence. Is it missing an "and [it has been] examined"?

Changed as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Should the Homeostasis section mention the brain's role in hibernation?

My knowledge of that is extremely sketchy. What do you think it should say? Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that hybernation provides the brain protection from cold temperatures and low oxygen flow, so some mention might be relevant. Also, it contrasts with the discussion regarding sleep, since the mechanisms and effects upon the brain differ. RJH (talk)

I am open to suggestions, but I don't see this as essential (I'm not even sure hibernation should be thought of homeostasis), and I don't know anything to say about it. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. RJH (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• There's no mention of energy use in the brain or heat regulation.

As the note at the top of the article indicates, that topic is covered in the human brain article -- although not as thoroughly as could be wished. It is really only in humans that the brain is a large enough fraction of the body for that to matter, as far as I know. This is not an area where I have great expertise, though, so there might be literature I'm not aware of. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. But all brains use energy and I think it's at least worth mentioning in terms of a cost factor for possessing a large brain. Also, does it need to be explained how energy is transported across the blood-brain barrier? RJH (talk)

I have moved the Metabolism section back into this article from the human brain article, simplifying it a bit and placing it in the Physiology section. Will that work for you? Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. RJH (talk)

Followup: as I said above to Axl, this section has now been rewritten. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Update As of now I have responded to every issue that has been raised, and await further comments. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A DAB. Would have fixed it myself but I don't know which link is correct. I would guess cellular differentiation? Albacore (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I was aware of that, and left it as it was because I thought that none of the dab links was appropriate. But looking again, I see that the cellular differentiation article actually does discuss induction briefly. There really ought to be a separate article on it, because it is quite an important process, but I suppose resolving as you suggest is the right thing to do for now, so I've made that change. Looie496 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Anthonyhcole

• "The autonomic nervous system affects heart rate, digestion, respiration rate, salivation, perspiration, urination, and sexual arousal ..." Should you make it clear this isn't an exhaustive list of ANS functions?

I have added "and several other processes". Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Under Brain#Functions: "(The brain) then processes this raw data to extract meaning." Can meaning be applied to insect and arachnid cognition? I don't know the answer, and can't access the source.

Yeah, that was too loosely worded. I've rephrased it as "It then processes this raw data to extract information about the structure of the environment". Still a bit loose, but it's hard to be completely precise without resorting to jargon or formulations so complicated most readers won't be able to understand them. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Bloody marvelous. Well done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Commentstentative support (but fix nerve error) (on comprehensiveness and prose grounds) - I read through a swathe of this article the other day and got distracted. I must say it is pretty impressive. I'll continue and jot notes below: I can't see any deal-breakers outstanding. I think the article is over the line, and straddles clear English vs scientific accuracy well. It is large and will spot check some sources and prose laterCasliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Note on topic coverage I'm not sure about - I recognise its utility but find the fact that it looks the same as the body of text disconcerting as it is somewhat meta. I can see some duplication of it with the italicised segment at the top of the page. This is a placeholder, not a deal-breaker per se as I cannot think of an improvement just yet.

I am totally sympathetic to that attitude. I think it's essential to get that information across to the reader somehow, but I am completely open to doing it in a different way if a different way is preferred. Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That section disconcerts me too. Would it be better to make it an opening paragraph for the "See also" section of the page? Doing so seems logical to me, but I've never seen paragraph text in "See also" sections before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

and their ability to integrate electrochemical signals received from other cells - the verb "integrate" strikes me as a bit nebulous here. I'm thinking "respond to" is better, and tossing up whether chucking in the adverb "appropriately" is needed too.

Revised as suggested -- it does seem a bit clearer that way. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: Just noted motor neuron debate above - will look into this later. Gotta run as real life beckons... yes needs fixing - cranial nerves don't arise from SC (except a bit of one or two of 'em). ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Now rewritten, see comment above. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the images in this article haven't been reviewed yet, and there's quite a few of them. Ucucha (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Begin image review - I note that File:Chimp Brain in a jar.jpg was uploaded in 2008 with a note that the licence was appropriate then. However the source on flickr now says all rights reserved....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Once an image has been released under a certain license, the license cannot be revoked. I think it would be possible to find an alternative image, but I'm not sure we need to. Looie496 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am a neophyte on images anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a reasonably solid understanding of copyright law, but not such a solid grasp of Wikipedia's policies regarding image use, so I do need checking up on. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just spent a lot of time learning about Wikipedia's image policies, and my understanding is that Looie is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Status update At this point I believe I have responded to all issues that have been raised, although some reviewers have not yet verified that the responses are adequate. RJHall, Anthonyhcole, and Casliber have supported promotion; Axl is uncomfortable with some aspects but not explicitly opposed. There has not been a complete image review, however most of the images were present during FA3 and were deemed acceptable then. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review A few things:

- Please go through the images and make sure that all of them have a Template:Information template in them, with everything that needs to be there, in there.

I am not aware of any FAC guideline that says it is my responsibility to do that. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one, however some of the images have the information strewn all over the place, making it rather hard to find it all. It's more of a common courtesy thing, like alt texts. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it were just a courtesy I would be happy to do it. But the fact is that my knowledge of Wikipedia's image policies is limited, and my approach is basically to assume that things from Commons are usable unless somebody tells me that they aren't. So this is asking me for something that I really don't know how to do. I'll take responsibility for images that I have uploaded myself (which are either entirely my own work or derived from things that I know are licensed appropriately), but I don't want to be responsible for validating things that other people have uploaded. Looie496 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

- File:Horizontal sections of fetal brain.jpg is extremely.. err.. sketchy. Without knowing anything about the user, my first inclination is to call the own work claim bogus. He says it comes from http://www.anatomyumftm.com. I'm kinda queesy so I didn't verify if that's true or not, but the website itself dosen't have a copyright release of any kind. In the absence of that, of an OTRS ticket, or even of a statement saying that Anatomist90 is connected to the website, the image has to go. I've alerted a Commons admin via the IRC, so that image might disappear soon anyways.

I'm not responsible for putting that image there, and even if the permission was somehow okay, it doesn't belong where it was placed or really anywhere in the article. I have removed it. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

- File:Tursiops truncatus brain size modified.JPG is based off of a museum exhibit. Not sure about what that does for copyright status. Is the exhibit copyrighted by the museum? If so, this is tainted fruit, so to speak.

I have removed the image, with some regret, as it is extremely difficult to find usable images for that topic. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

- File:6 week embryo brain.jpg also makes me uncomfortable. Where did the uploader get his information? It's not that I doubt the accuracy, just that it... well... dosen't feel right. Feel free to ignore this one.

The original uploader has created a lot of images like this one, using Inkscape (an SVG image editor). Of course there is never any way of knowing for certain, but I see no actual evidence that the claim of self-creation is wrong -- I've created numerous line drawings of this sort myself. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Sorry, but it looks like you've got a bit more cleanup to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is remarkable work. I've just read the article and found almost nothing I could even quibble with. The only comment I can offer is that a navigation template at the end that guided the reader to specific brain-related topics would be very helpful. My support is that of a layperson; I have no knowledge of neuroscience beyond what can be gained from reading science articles in magazines such as Scientific American. I also have not checked the sources or images. With those caveats, I believe this is worthy of FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I notice that a comparison is made to Jell-O. Basically no-one outside North America (I'm not sure about Canada) will know; I understand the source probably does. However, Jell-O could describe a number of dessert products. Can we say that the source meant a gelatin dessert? Perhaps we should say that instead? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it work to just say gelatin? Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Gelatin itself is rather different. Is there a separate comparison in the source? Or perhaps merely link Jell-O to "Gelatin dessert" instead. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've simply removed that comparison. We've gone around on this about half-a-dozen times, and there doesn't seem to be any way to make people happy. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Opposeable Spotcheck concerns (10/145 cites) I am a historian, not a neurobiological anatomist. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Checked: fn 4; 13; 23; 33; 44; 53; 64; 73; 83; 94.
  • I don't see how fn44 adequately supports its citation with 400 pages of pathology, when one sentence of normal function is required to be sourced appropriately.
  • I don't see how fn53 adequately supports the assertion that mammal brains are different to other vertebrates, etc. It supports a discussion on primate / non-primates.
  • fn64 is a 400 page book allegedly supporting two sentences. Try pp. 327; 387ff §"Drug abuse" Also try a bit of courtesy to your readers. 400pg over two major assertions...
  • fn73 misrepresents its source Wikipedia: "The need to limit body weight in order, for example, to fly, has apparently led to selection for a reduction of brain size in some species, such as bats." Safi2005 at abstract: "Relative to the ancestral state, brain size in bats has been reduced in fast flyers, while it has increased in manoeuvrable flyers adapted to flight in complex habitats. This study emphasizes that brain reduction and enlargement are equally important, and they should both be considered when investigating brain size evolution."

-- [Above comments by Fifelfoo (talk)]; note added by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) to separate the comments above from the response.]

I agree with Fifelfoo that it would be nice to have some of these be more specific, but I would hate to see the article fail promotion for this reason, since it seems likely that the information really is embedded in those sources. As I'm neither an editor of the article nor knowledgeable about the field I don't want to modify the citations myself, but I will see if I can find alternative sourcing for these.

• fn44: Could be sourced to page 98 of Gordon, E. (2000). Integrative Neuroscience: Bringing Together Biological, Psychological and Clinical Models of the Human Brain. CRC Press. ISBN 9789058230553. This would cover everything except the comment that the hypothalamus regulates sleep and wake cycles, which would be partly covered by p. 104 of the same source, and could also be sourced to page 96 of Stickgold, R,; Walker, P. (2009). The Neuroscience of Sleep. Academic Press. ISBN 9780123750730.
• fn53: Could be sourced to p. 119 of Finlay, B.L.; Innocenti, G.M.; Scheich, H. (1991). The Neocortex: Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Springer. ISBN 9780306438080.
• fn64: Fifelfoo gives the reduced form of the reference that would work in this case.
• fn73: There are numerous references to selection for reduced brain size; it's easy to source the statement that brains are metabolically expensive. However, everything I found on bat metabolism talks more about selection via complexity of environment, not for flight: e.g. frugivorous bats have larger brains than folivorous bats. It would be possible to generally source the statement that selection for a larger brain size involves more metabolic expense and hence must have some compensating positive selection pressure, but I couldn't find support for the statement as given, and I think it might be best to change it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Mike Christie, I sympathise. This is a top order article in anatomy. The rate of spotcheck problems (4 problems from 10 sources spotchecked) indicates that there are problems throughout, probably about 56 problems. While your suggested corrections excellently cover the four problems I located, one of the editors carrying this nomination (hopefully one with access to the major texts unavailable electronically) really needs to revisit every citation and double check against the standards indicated above. 400 page passim. citations aren't appropriate, and indicate sloppy verification. I appreciate that many of the statements are supported by broad, appropriate encyclopaedic synthesis, and that some passim citations may be required at the level of the relevant chapter, see my 387ff §"Drug abuse" suggestion above. I'm strongly concerned about the Bat example: it indicates that the person making that citation didn't adequately compare even the abstract to the article. I don't want to see this shot down, but the nominating editors have previously been warned about this on the 10th and 14th of October, above. Given that Nikkimaria was quite specific about these defects very early on, I was a little disappointed when spotchecking. I understand that the primarily responsible editor has been requesting spotchecks for some time, so as long as the delegates are satisfied, I don't mind waiting. From my perspective, this seems like the only thing holding up the article. But it is a firm hold or fail issue as it goes to verifiability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "It is located in the head, usually close to primary sensory apparatus such as vision, hearing, balance, taste and smell." 'Apparatuses' is the more common plural form, but regardless, vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell are not sensory apparatuses, they are senses. This sentence needs to be rewritten. Kaldari (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's sort of funny how difficult it is to say something that is basically so simple -- I've revised it to "usually close to primary sensory organs for senses such as vision, hearing, balance, taste and smell." Does that work? Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.