Talk:Functional integration (neurobiology)
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Student assignment edit
Is there a cite for this? "How Brains Make up Their Minds" by Walter Freeman? Anyone?
I got my conception of Functional Integration from some of Karl Friston's reviews. Anishpotnis (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Also, hi. I'm working on this page as part of an assignment for an introductory neuroscience class at my college. I'm aware of the existence of a few scholarpedia articles on similar topics, but I thought there existed a niche here for a somewhat less dense discussion on how medical imaging data is collected/analyzed/used.
Anishpotnis (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Citation you asked for
- Freeman, Walter J. (2000). How brains make up their mind. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-12008-1. OCLC 222752784.
You will need to copy the edit version and delete all of the <>! and -- . Hope this helps dolfrog (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
References edit
Hi, a reference to an article just giving the title and "Nature 2008" is not very useful, given the fact that Nature has 52 issues/year. If you use the {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} templates, we have bots that can fill in the rest (and add DOIs and such, so that there's a clickable link leading directly to the article cited). Hope this helps. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello randy, I updated my references, adding clickable links to all articles indexed by pubmed. Anishpotnis (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Further on referencing: there are quite a lot unsourced statements in the article. And some that are sourced but wrongly so: at one point it is mentioned that a study was "well designed". Such praise has to be sourced independently, but the only source given is to this study itself. Please note that everything you say must be sourced... --Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)