Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerebellum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cerebellum

A lot of work was put into this article by Nrets and me. It was sent to peer review and had an excellent reception. It's clean, it's thorough, and I think it will help fill out the number of biology Featured Articles.

  • Support, I think (or rather hope) that we managed to merge general overviews with more technical details fairly effectively. We also addressed comments/concerns that came up during the peer review. Most of the illustrations were done by me or User:Semiconscious so they can be edited further if anyone has any comments on those. Nrets 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

*It's not there yet; needs some cleaning up, and more importantly, careful references to diagrams in the text to help the non-specialist reader to navigate her way through a lexically complicated text.Tony 07:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I incorporated the changes you suggested on the talk pages as well as made references to the figures in the text. I know the article is a bit technical, but I think that there is enough there to satisfy a general audience, plus a lot more to provide in-depth information to whomever is looking for it. Nrets 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I still think some terms could be better explained in the text or linked. For example, "Lesions of the cerebellum cause not paralysis but feedback deficits, manifesting as disorders in fine movement, equilibrium, posture, and motor learning" is a sentence in the lead section. Feedback deficits could be linked to, or even more fully explained. What is defined as "fine movement" and "equilibrium" in this context? --Oldak Quill 10:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten to intro to make it more clear and accessible. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The intro section needs expansion, and the random and strange bolding of certain terms needs to be removed. The term "figure" should also be removed from the article as the images should be placed next to where they are first introduced. I would also like to see the images right-aligned so that they don't push text. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 19:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've addresses several of your concerns, expanding the first introduction a bit by including some brief history. I've removed the seemingly random bolding of phrases. The term "figure" appears at the request of another user on the talk page in response to the placement as a FAC; the user felt by adding those pointers it would assist the reader. Due to the size and number of images, we can't always place the images next to the text where they are the most relevent. However, I have cleaned up the placement of some of the images. Semiconscious (talk · home) 20:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I've continued and made some edits of my own, but I'd also like to see citing of information in the article as well as more external links. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 23:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added many more external links that are pretty cool, I think. So much of the stuff in this article is "general" knowledge, so the three non-numbered references given at the bottom cover just about all this material. However I will continue to go through the article and look for less-than-general pieces of information so I may provide references for them. I've added one more reference already. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've added a few more references. I'm still working on it... Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support—the authors have used their considerable research and teaching experience to produce an authoritative and well written summary of the subject. Tony 01:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've addressed your further concerns on the talk pages. Great work; thanks for your help! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I've been reading through this article more closely now than in the peer review. I think that there is *great* work here, and that you guys have really done your homework. However, I think the writing quality of this article is still too uneven to represent Wikipedia's best. It's close, but not quite there. All you need is some more copyediting and clarification. What I think needs to be looked at:

:*Introduction: fragmented and not neccesarily the best 5 sentence overview of the cerebellum

  • I've rewritten the introduction. I feel my briefcase example gives a very succinct view of what the cerebellum does. Let me know your thoughts. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • General features: Some technical terms thrown around here that are never explained: "perpendicular circuits"? Also, why compare the cerebellum to the optic nerve? I don't see how that analogy makes anything clearer.
  • Well, another user removed my briefcase example. Let me know what you think. Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried to be aware of the jargon used all throughout this article but it's difficult for someone so accustomed to the terminology. I've addressed the one particular instance you've mentioned here, so let me know what you think. If you find any more instances, I will try to address those as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Re: the optic nerve, it was in there when I began my massive re-edits, and I never thought to remove it? :) It just seems as though vision is such a complicated system, so comparing the cerebellum tracts to that system makes it seem all the more remarkable. I can remove it, but I think it gives the casual reader a sense of the enormous responsibility of this structure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Development and evolution: Try to make this a little more user-friendly. Some of the sentences are very awkward. Also "thisis is one of many of the ironies of the “little brain.”" I don't see what the irony is, and I think that statement is somewhat silly for an anatomy article, especially since none of the other "ironies" are pointed out.

  • Tony addressed the awkwardness issues with his awesome editing. The irony issue... I've fixed the wording here, but we discuss many of the other ironies at the end of the article, such as this "motor" structure now proving to be involved in cogntive and language functions, as well as how people who have lost their cerebellum seem to function so well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Anatomy: This section is generally quite good, but I would really like to see a lot more wikification - more links!

  • Thanks! I can wikify a lot of the links here, but I haven't becasue they would mostly be redundant (i.e., "motor cortex" was already wikified earlier in the article) or self-referential. Suggestions? Semiconscious (talk · home) 04:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

These are just things off the top of my head, not the only things that can be fixed. Try to read these sections out loud and see how they flow, and you'll get what I mean. In my opinion, if this stuff is addressed, this is a featured article. I hope you guys tackle other neuroanatomy projects. Interested in brain stem, basal ganglia, or frontal lobe? Mr.Bip 05:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Support - A lot of the jargon has been left untouched, but I understand that this comes with the territory. Maybe I'll take a stab at explaining a few terms over the next few weeks. Still, this is quality science writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Mr.Bip 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For my future projects (most immediately basal ganglia), I will try to keep the jargon to a minimum. Nearly all my experience with this is in relation to colleagues, so writing for a general audience often does not cross my mind. Always write to your audience. Thanks for the help and advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - still a bit heavy on the jargon, but I'm assuming thats unavoidable when dealing with a subject like this. Despite that, however, it's resonable easy to read, and very interesting even to a layman like me. Awesome illustrations. WegianWarrior 03:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. See my comment directly above yours regarding the jargon. I'll work on it in this article, and I'll keep it to a minimum in future writings. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This beautiful effort by Semiconscious and Nrets is fully deserving of Featured status. It is well written, explains unfamiliar technical and scientific concepts clearly, has good diagrams (some drawn by the two editors themselves), and is reasonably well-referenced. The section on cerebellar dysfunction can perhaps be expanded — I particularly expected to see some allusion to the seminal work of Gordon Holmes — but still, one would not expect a treatise on the disorders of the cerebellum in what is a general encyclopedia article; I will see if I can round it out in the next few days (as it stands however, it should not be a reason to deny FA status, IMO). The reference section can do with a little cleaning up — inline references in the text are currently of the Harvard form, and link externally, whereas there is a preference on WP for intext notes that link to references, as I understand it. This is not very difficult, Semiconscious, I could show you how to Scratch that, I think I'll just wander over and patch it up for you. Some technical terms are not defined when they first occur (or linked to an article that defines them). For example, ipsilateral occurs at least twice, but I cannot see an explanation of what it means anywhere (link such terms to this article guys). I'm glad to see reference to some of the work being currently done on the cognitive functions of the cerebellum. However, the concluding sentence of the article is misleading. You might see this in the lower mammals, but in the human, getting relieved of one's cerebellum is not an altogether pleasant experience - the pancerebellar syndrome is not fun, and is conspicuously disabling (although chronic lesions often have muted effects). Would you consider removing or editing it? Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  04:14:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Thanks Encephalon. The cerebellum is not my "specialty" in as much as I can be said to have a specialty, so I'll have to look into some of the works you've mentioned. The sentence in regards to the pancerebellar lesions was indeed misleading... I'd written it but it didn't come across as I had intended to write it. And as I head over there to rewrite it, I see you've just corrected my error. Thanks. In regards to the anatomical location terms, I tried to cover that with a blanket "link here for help with anatomical terms" link at the top of the page. I'll be sure to follow the format you've offered in the future. The references look really good now, too; I like the separation of the general reference books into a "selected readings" section. You've done this wikipedia thing before, I see. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Really nice effort. I changed 2 headings in hope of clarity; change them back if you think they are less clear. alteripse 16:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't mind I edited your post to bold your support response. This is for my own clarity so I can parse users' responses as I check this page, to see if I can make any improvements to the article. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to replace the MRI (which I find blurry and difficult to use) with Image:Human brain NIH.jpg (take the picture, highlight the cerebellum, reupload and put it into the article) →Raul654 01:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I took your suggestion and replaced the image. I left the old one as well because: I'm still partial to it, it shows techniques that scientists use to study the cerebellum, and it fills up some white space next to the TOC. Nrets 15:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Cerebellum_a6ac.html"