Talk:Human brain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Language section

@Rjanag in your edit you remove this text:

• "Language functions are generally localized to Wernicke's area and Broca's area."
• "Wernicke's area is at the posterior part of the superior temporal gyrus of the dominant half of the brain, and seems to be responsible for creation and interpretation of spoken thought. Broca's area is located in the prefrontal cortex, most commonly on the left side of the brain, and is responsible for the creation of motor activity responsible for speaking. These two areas are connected by the arcuate fasciculus. Areas of the cerebellum, basal ganglia and areas of the motor cortex related to the face and larynx also play a role in coordinating and regulating muscle movements during speech. There has been substantial debate over these pathways"

And inserted this text:

• "It was later observed, however, that the correlation between behavioural symptoms and regions of brain damage is weak. There currently is substantial debate over which brain structures are involved in which aspects of language use."

I have provided a recent, widely accepted tertiary source to verify these claims. Primary sources are unreliable and tend not to be used here on WP (WP:PSTS). Can we find a way to reflect your concerns (note that "There has been substantial debate over these pathways" is already present) without removing what appears to be accepted scientific consensus at this point? --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Language is localized to Wernicke's and Broca's area" is absolutely not the accepted scientific consensus, any more than "your health is based on four humours" is. I have been attending academic conferences on this topic for many years; these claims are controversial at best and are nothing close to scientific consensus (although unfortunately they are still taught in many textbooks; but then again, creationism is also taught in many textbooks, so "it appears in textbooks" is a lousy metric for inclusion).

The sources I put in are not primary sources. The main source I left in my edit, the Poeppel et al. paper, is a peer-reviewed scientific review article and was already present in the earlier version (although it was put next to claims that are not actually in those papers). If you read these papers you will see that they do not at all support this claim, and they explicitly make references to networks beyond Wernicke's and Broca's areas that support language.

Another source you may be interested in is Fedorenko & Kanwisher (2009), which provides a decent review of these issues on pp. 840-841, ending with "Thus, language appears to rely on a network much more extensive than the initially hypothesized set of two primary regions in the left frontal and left temporal lobes." This stuff is not news, it has been widely known for a long time. (This, too, is not a primary source; the journal Language & Linguistics Compass only publishes broad review articles, not original research.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Rjanag My apologies, after looking into this in more depth I admit I am wrong -- many thanks for pointing this out. I eat my linguistic socks (and semantic sandals) to boot. I have changed the text back to reflect consensus. I unfortunately am strapped for time to perfect a way to represent Wernicke's/Broca's areas, but would like to mention them given they still form a large part of conventional teaching but in a way that acknowledges this view has been superseded... and then maybe in 5-10 years with more acceptance we can deprecate the representation further. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't my edit already still mention Wernicke's and Broca's, while pointing out that they once were considered language centers but no longer are? So I don't really see what the big question is. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rjanag agree, thank you again for your edits, please have a look at the rest of the article too, this is a complex organ :)--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Just chipping in to say (belatedly) that Rjanag is right that the Wernicke/Broca areas as the brains "language centers" is now considered outdated and simplistic by neurolinguists and neurologists- I think the reason that it is still taught is for the historical relevance and because it serves as a heuristic for to make understanding the relation between the brain and language easier.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As long as we are sticking to the most up-to-date information and are using tertiary or secondary sources, instead of primary sources, for the matter (for reasons noted at WP:MEDRS about sourcing issues), we will be fine. What used to be believed about the brain should also obviously be included. In this case, it seems it should go in the section in question rather than in the History section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

____

References

These references will appear in the article, but this list appears only on this page.

Pre GA nomination

I think we are getting very close to a GA nom here... the article is mostly fleshed out and generally cited. Three issues that may need to be addressed:

• Providing citations
  • "Other animals" and in the disease section
• Trimming the lead

What do other editors think... is there anything else that is outstanding? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ping to Flyer22, Iztwoz and Seppi333

The ping didn't work, but I've found my way to the section, LOL. Well, as noted above, I still want to add the wrinkling aspect to the article, but that's no reason to hold up a GA nomination.

I see that the lead was broken up into six paragraphs. Per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be four paragraphs. But this article seems to be the rare exception to the standard four-paragraph lead. I'd been meaning to address the huge first paragraph, but I was wondering how to split up the text and whether anything I might trim should stay in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Have just made some heading changes in line with usual sectioning - Body fluids circulation may not be acceptable but couldn't see another way of making (inclusive) separation. Re Tom's earlier comments - feel that there's a lot more needed for such a complex subject - as article is greatly improved say since three months ago don't appreciate the urgency for taking it to GA. There's no mention of cortical columns for instance and the whole area of microanatomy is underrepresented; more is also needed for Development and a lot more for Neurotransmission. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed the 'fluids' heading Iztwoz, for the reason you state. I feel CSF and blood supply should remain separate topics, as they each have their own importance distinctions, and I'm am not sure what the additional benefit of a "body fluids" section heading would be. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Lateralization section

With this edit, LT910001 (Tom) removed a bit from the Lateralization section, stating, "boldly remove last paragraph - first two do an excellent job of explaining lateralisation and article is already quite long."

I reverted, stating, "I feel that this should remain as it helps readers understand how this research has been conducted. It's also more informative than the previous paragraph on this strange brain behavior." I keep looking at it and I still feel that it should stay. It's a small, informative paragraph, and I don't see the harm in letting it remain.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22, no strong feelings about this section... I made those two edits as I'm getting a bit concerned about the length of the article, now 138k kilobytes. Even on my fast connection and relatively new computer the page takes some time to load... and we haven't even fully fleshed out the article. Also I do not think split brain patients reveal that much about lateralisation; just as much information is provided by location of stroke and functional imaging, as described in the "research" section. What do you think about the article length? (perhaps this is just in my mind). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Tom, I don't just think that the split-brain aspect is an interesting tidbit. I truly think including it helps readers understand the odd lateralization aspect of the brain. After all, these split-brain studies have helped scientists understand the brain and a number of them have gone on to describe people as two people in one body because of these studies. With the split-brain text gone, readers are deprived of the following, for example: "These patients do not show unusual behavior that is immediately obvious, but in some cases can behave almost like two different people in the same body, with the right hand taking an action and then the left hand undoing it. These patients, when briefly shown a picture on the right side of the point of visual fixation, are able to describe it verbally, but when the picture is shown on the left, are unable to describe it, but may be able to give an indication with the left hand of the nature of the object shown." To me, this aspect demonstrates the odd lateralization aspect better than the previous text in the section. The previous text in the section is more technical, while this latter text is more analytical.

As for the size of the article, given the topic at hand, I don't see it as that big. We have president articles that are just as big or bigger. And understanding the human brain is just as important, or more so, than reading about a president. We are exercising WP:Summary style well in the article. By that, I mean we are leaving the more detailed information to the main articles. If any cutting is needed after we feel that we are essentially done with improving the article, we can weigh in on that matter then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

British English

Regarding this, I wanted to state this soon after the tag was added, but I will keep the British English aspect in mind when editing the article. I'm not British (I'm American); some others working on the article might not be British either. So when we see a slip up, let's make sure to correct it, per the "Consistency within articles" aspect of WP:ENGVAR. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That includes headings, like the "Lateralization" heading, as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Human brain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Section on Synaptic Transmission

I was wondering what other editors thought about adding a new section on synaptic transmission. Neurotransmission and (less so) communications at gap junctions are important aspects of brain physiology, but are not covered much in this article.Petergstrom (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a section Neurotransmission and synaptic transmission is an aka of this. Have added another hatnote to section - as a lot of other sections there is room for a little expansion. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My view is that an article like this should be largely understandable by an intelligent high school student, and almost fully understandable by an intelligent undergraduate non-biology major. I would say gap junctions are too technical, but the article should discuss neurotransmission at a sufficient level to give the reader a concept of how psychoactive drugs act on the brain. Looie496 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Iztwoz. A little expansion in the already existing section would be okay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Gene and protein expression section

Any thoughts on the "Gene and protein expression" section that Figgep added (followup edit here)? For example, the use of proteinatlas.org as a source? Per WP:COI, Doc James has criticized Figgep for adding the proteinatlas.org source to articles, but Doc James focused on the External links sections.

I know that the usual watchers are watching; so pinging Seppi333 and Chiswick Chap for their thoughts as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as the quality of content that was added is up to par with a GA-class article, I don't see any issue with an editor with a COI related to a website adding content from that website. The quality point is key here, because a COI simply means information is likely to be biased towards the sources with which one has a COI; it does not necessarily mean that the source is NPOV/biased or low-quality/bad though. E.g., WP:MED welcomes editors with a Cochrane affiliation to edit medical articles and add content from Cochrane reviews. My advice is to use editorial judgment on a case-by-case basis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333, what do you make of the quality of the sources and the content, though? And should the content be integrated into an already existing section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for inviting me. Personally, if I was actively editing this article (which I have no intention of doing), I'd chop the section as only tangential to the topic, or cut it down to focus on the most relevant material: the main link in the section suggests a possible alternative target, or one might have an article on Gene and protein expression in the human body or something of the sort. I certainly wouldn't like to see every single organ article cluttered up like that, but you medics are welcome to have it however you like. What might be of more interest would be a more focussed discussion of evo-devo factors specific to the brain, which could go in a Development section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the scope of that section is broad enough to potentially merit its own independent level 2 heading; at the very minimum, the topic deserves inclusion under a level 3 heading, possibly under the "Structure" section. I don't think it's tangential to the topic of the human brain though, as gene and protein expression profiles in the brain is a very notable topic in molecular neurobiology. There have been many studies and reviews on the expression of genes and proteins in the human brain, particularly in relation to viral vector-mediated alterations, brain disorders, drug-induced changes, and environmental influences on their expression. The latter three of those four are more applicable to the general readership. I think that would be a worthwhile addition to the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I'll take a look at the current sources that were cited shortly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The article content seems well-written and adequately sourced. IMO, the www.proteinatlas.org database appears to be moderate to high quality based upon comparison of the pages on proteins I'm familiar with and what I know about those proteins (e.g., TAAR1); however, I'd like to ask User:Boghog for his opinion on the quality of that database (particularly www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain) for use as an article citation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The database is enormously useful in research but must be used with caution (see disclaimer). As far as I know, the database itself has not been peer reviewed, hence it is probably not a good source for Wikipedia. The paper PMID 26076492 has been peer reviewed, but is primary. Given the peripheral nature of protein expression to a general article on the brain and the weak sources, I question whether this section should be in this article at all. Boghog (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree with you; however, since this article is on track to be an FA and since the topic is an active area of brain research, it'd need to be covered to some extent to satisfy FA criteria 1b and 1c. Perhaps the best thing to do is create a new article on the topic and just cover that topic in this article with a 1 paragraph WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section with appropriate citations. That'd easily satisfy both of those criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I reviewed it. I have higher requirements for ELs than text. If the text and source or okay I am fine with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Independent review on gene expression in the human brain

Also, I also came across a review which covers gene expression in the human brain that might be useful for expanding that section and/or citing existing content:

Specificity of gene expression in the human brain - from a 2013 review article

The Specificity of Gene Expression in Brain Tissue Comparison with others tissues Brain tissue is characterized by a high level of gene expression; at least 30–50% of ~25,000 known protein coding genes (International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2004) are expressed across all parts of the brain (Colantuoni, Purcell, Bouton, & Pevsner, 2000; Myers, et al., 2007). Moreover, the human brain has the highest level of gene expression compared with other mammals such as the mouse (Enard, et al., 2002; Lockhart & Barlow, 2001) and Homo sapiens’ closest primate relative (Caceres, et al., 2003; Enard, et al., 2002; Khaitovich, Muetzel, She, Lachmann, Hellmann, Dietzsch, et al., 2004). The results of several studies comparing transcriptomes in human and chimpanzee brains suggest that most genes differentially expressed in these species are up-regulated, or more highly expressed, in the human brain than vice versa (Caceres, et al., 2003; Khaitovich, Muetzel, She, Lachmann, Hellmann, Dietzsch, et al., 2004). In contrast, gene expression differences in other human and chimpanzee tissues, such as the heart and liver, are nearly identical in their numbers of up-(increased expression of one or more genes) and down-(decreased expression of one or more genes) regulated genes (Caceres, et al., 2003). It has been suggested (Caceres, et al., 2003) that this increased gene expression in the brain might allow for a higher level of neuronal activity and extensive changes in the physiology and function of the human brain. The gene expression profile of the brain is clearly distinct from other tissues, as shown by a comparison of global expression patterns across 45 different human tissues, including the CNS; in this comparison, many genes have been identified that distinguish the CNS from all other tissues (Roth, et al., 2006). Several computational analyses of gene expression variability across different human tissues using exon array (de la Grange, Gratadou, Delord, Dutertre, & Auboeuf, 2010) and RNA-Seq (Ramskold, Wang, Burge, & Sandberg, 2009) data suggest that the brain (together with the kidney and testes) has higher gene expression levels and transcriptome complexity compared to other tissues. That is, brain tissue has a high number of expressed genes – 13,298 genes were found to be expressed in the human brain (the range of the number of genes expressed across different human tissues is from 11,199 to 15,518), and the brain transcriptome has more diverse populations of RNA (de la Grange, Gratadou, Delord, Dutertre, & Auboeuf, 2010; Ramskold, Wang, Burge, & Sandberg, 2009) than other tissues and cell types. There is evidence that the brain transcriptome is especially enriched with mRNAs with longer 3′UTR sequences compared with other tissues; these might be required for transporting mRNA far away from the nuclei or for specific protein functions in the brain tissue (Ramskold, Wang, Burge, & Sandberg, 2009). Notably, some studies of gene expression in the brain based on sequencing technologies reported a high proportion of transcripts from introns and intergenic repeats— portions of the gene not coding for protein—including a subfamily of Alu-elements (a short stretch of biochemically distinctly recognizable DNA), in the transcriptome of brain tissue (Faulkner, Kimura, Daub, Wani, & Plessy, 2009; Xu, et al., 2010). Thus, we would expect an especially high level of enrichment of regulatory elements, such as transcriptional and translational factors, microRNAs and so forth. It was shown that the set of non-coding long and short RNAs (lncRNA and miRNA, respectively) is also highly enriched in the transcriptome of the brain (Chodroff, et al., 2010; Kuss & Chen, 2008; Ponjavic, Oliver, Lunter, & Ponting, 2009; Schonrock, et al., 2010; St Laurent, Faghihi, & Wahlestedt, 2009). A complex orchestra of these non-coding RNAs, which have important structural and regulatory functions as transcriptional and posttranscriptional regulators of gene expression (Amaral, Clark, Gascoigne, Dinger, & Mattick, 2011; Landgraf, et al., 2007), is expressed in the brain, where ncRNA play key roles in neuronal differentiation, development, and synaptic plasticity. Additionally, it was found that a particular set of miRNAs in the brain transcriptome seems to be structurally quite different from those found in other tissues (Landgraf, et al., 2007). ... Variability among the brain regions and anatomical structures The brain is a complex organ that is comprised of several anatomical substructures. The literature contains evidence indicating the high variability of gene expression in distinct sites in the brain tissue. Studies that present data on transcriptome variation across brain regions suggest that the cerebellum has the most distinguishable gene expression pattern compared with other brain substructures (Lockhart & Barlow, 2001; Roth, et al., 2006; Strand, et al., 2007). Variation in gene expression across brain regions is related to both functional and anatomical differences in its substructures. Moreover, studies involving animal models show that gene expression appears to correlate with performance (e.g., on motor tasks) in some brain substructures, such as the cerebellum, amygdala, and hippocampus (Nadler, et al., 2006). Significant differences in the cell composition of the various anatomical brain substructures result in cell-specific differences in gene expression (Colantuoni, et al., 2000). For example, it has been shown that genes involved in the regulation of glutamate receptor signaling pathways are especially enriched in their expression in the cerebellum, which contains a large number of glutamatergic granule cells— small cells with axons projecting glutamate (Roth, et al., 2006). Even between cortical layers there is a difference in gene expression due to distinct populations of projection neurons that are located in different cortical layers and areas of the neocortex (Molyneaux, Arlotta, Menezes, & Macklis, 2007). A large-scale study on gene expression profiling 20 anatomically distinct sites in the human CNS using the Affymetrix microarray suggested that different sites in the CNS fall into recognizable clusters corresponding to the CNS’s functional and anatomical groups, such as the cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, limbic system, forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain and spinal cord (Roth, et al., 2006). It was shown that the global transcriptome profile reflects the anatomy/function of the CNS and cluster-specific genes were detected, which ranged in number from 8 (in the hypothalamus) to ~2,000 (in the cerebellum). Another important finding of this study is that within groups—with the exception of the cerebellum and the spinal cord—very few substructures of the CNS, such as the putamen and the corpus callosum, contain transcriptions of region-specific genes, and no genes show differential expression among the tested cortical sites of the brain tissue from the occipital, parietal, frontal, and temporal lobes of the cortex (Roth, et al., 2006). The high variability of the transcriptome among distinct brain regions has been confirmed in another study (Strand, et al., 2007) comparing the global transcriptome analyses in the motor cortex, caudate nucleus, and cerebellum, using the same Affymetrix microarray technique. In this study approximately 30 genes were detected that showed region-specific expression of the “on/off” type. Comparing these three distinct substructures of the brain across 12 individuals (eight men and four women, whose ages ranged from 36 to 77), the researchers showed that human individual variability in gene expression neither obscures nor significantly contributes to regional differences (Strand, et al., 2007). In contrast, there were many fewer differences found between cortical areas within the individual brain (i.e., between areas within the same individuals) than in regional differences between individuals (i.e., within one area between different individuals), despite their substantial differences in function and the cellular architecture of the neurons in the cerebral cortex of the brain (Khaitovich, Muetzel, She, Lachmann, Hellmann, & Dietzsch, 2004; Naumova, et al., unpublished data). For example, only one of the 4,998 genes with detectable expression differences between Broca’s area (inferior frontal cortex) and the left prefrontal cortex, was identified in three human individuals analyzed in a study comparing the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, primary visual cortex, and Broca’s area (Khaitovich, Muetzel, She, Lachmann, Hellmann, Dietzsch, et al., 2004). The high variability and low concordance of gene expression within the cortical regions between individuals might reflect genetic heterogeneity, differential responses of different individuals to the environment, brain plasticity in the realization of higher cognitive functions throughout the lifetime and in different environments, among many other “unknowns.” Only the systematic study of the gene expression variation among distinct functional cortical areas will be able to resolve these intriguing questions on the interindividual differentiation of the cerebral cortex in terms of gene expression, as well as to provide a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the distinct behavioral functions controlled by the CNS and the typical and atypical (pathological) development of these functions. Dynamics of Gene Expression in the Brain through the Life-Span ... [section omitted, but contains relevant and notable information that would be worth mentioning in this article] — From PMID 23145569; full text on PMC in this link

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you both all weighing in. Thanks very much for the analysis, Seppi. I'll wait and see if anyone else has an opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The topic seems to be notable enough for mentioning - but I would agree that it needs a little fleshing out. Have had a look at review which offers some useful material and will make some edits soon. Might it be more suitably placed in Microanatomy section? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for this very interesting discussion regarding both content, importance, format and validity of the addition I made under "Gene and protein expression". Being new here, it is educational to see how the community reasons regarding scientific information, COI, primary vs secondary sources etc. I am of course biased having devoted most of my professional life to understanding what underlies the various cell phenotypes one can observe in the microscope. I think such information, as exemplified by my added sentences, is basic and provides a fundament for understanding what are different tissue types and organs really are, what are the similarities and differences between the different cell types we can define through the microscope, what are the tissue type specific genes that correspond to different cellular functions in situ etc. If this deserves a heading of it own, I don´t know, perhaps a subheading under "Structure"? I don´t think it fits under microanatomy, its more of histology with an extra information layer showing mRNA and protein expression data on top of morphology. I feel convinced that the future will add lots of more important and elucidating data that will fit inunder "Gene and protein expression", as technology develops and resolution increases. Thanks for providing the review, which is a couple of years old and includes some of the first RNA-Seq based data from the human brain (Ramskold et al). One could add some conclusions from this and the article could absolutely be cited. I think links to both HPA, GTEx and the Fantom 5 databases (which all include expression data on the human brain), could be added to help readers find sources of the data that lies behind what we know today. Just a word on reliability of Human Protein Atlas as source for knowledge, I think it provides both original data, transparent validation of all methods and reagents used, all human tissues that were used to obtain expression data were carefully examined under the microscope to ascertain representativity and the data is also interpreted in knowledge-based chapters with lots of examples to show proof of concepts. I would think that the broad use, many publications, cross-referencing in other large databases would qualify as more than just a primary source as representing a single study.

Thanks again for all input!! Figgep (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Figgep, see what Boghog stated above. See WP:MEDRS. It's one thing to add a primary source, which is an issue per WP:MEDRS. It's another to needlessly add your website. You stated, "I feel convinced that the future will add lots of more important and elucidating data." But we are not supposed to edit based on what the future may bring (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And, yes, I know you told Doc James that it's not your site. But, like he pointed out, you are one of the founders. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Other reviews that cover gene expression in the human brain (2013-2017)

I haven't read any of these, but I'm putting them here for me or others to go through later.

1. PMID 28254370 - "Gene expression profiling in the human alcoholic brain" (August 2017)
   • This review is paywalled until August 2018, but the full text is available at sci-hub.bz/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.02.017
2. PMID 26828645 - "Gene expression in the aging human brain: an overview" (March 2016)
   • This review is paywalled, but the full text is available at sci-hub.bz/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000238
3. PMID 23958183 - "The genome in three dimensions: a new frontier in human brain research" (June 2014)
   • This review is open access; the full text is available on PMC at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925763/
4. PMID 23324662 - "Human brain evolution: transcripts, metabolites and their regulators" (February 2013)
   • This review is paywalled, but the full text is available at sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nrn3372

Quote from primary source PMID 28420888

For our first model (MD1), we observed that about 85% (24,863) of the genes demonstrate synonymous expression profile in at least one brain structure. These results corroborate with the results from previous studies, which have shown 84% of genes to be expressed in the adult human brain2 and 80% in the mouse brain26. Comparison of expression patterns resulted in a total of 190 brain structures carrying similarly pattered gene expression for at least one gene. The frequency distribution of genes with reproducible expression patterns across distinct brain structures for MD1 is shown in Fig. 1b. Our results demonstrate the consistency of expression patterns across six donors. However, due to the stringency of filtering criteria, the frequency distribution of similarly expressed genes across brain structures is varied across different models. ... Since MD1 models shows the minimum loss of gene expression information by retaining the most number of brain structures with differentially expressed genes when compared to the other three models (Fig. 1c), we used the MD1 model for all the subsequent analyses in this study. ... Given this observation and to increase statistical power, samples from the two hemispheres for each structure were pooled for all subsequent analyses. In each brain independently, 84% of unique transcripts on the microarrays (29,412, referred to as genes for this manuscript) were found to be expressed in at least one structure (91.4% overlap in expressed gene sets between brains), consistent with the percentage of genes expressed in mouse brain by ISH (80%; ref. 1) and fetal human brain by microarrays (76%; ref. 11). Expression levels across anatomical structures were strongly correlated between brains (Pearson r = 0.98, P < 10−40), with a highly significant correlation in differential expression relationships between structures (Pearson r = 0.46, P < 10−40).

• I also noticed 1 interesting primary source: PMID 28420888 - "Global gene expression profiling of healthy human brain and its application in studying neurological disorders" (April 2017);

  This primary source indicates that ~85% of genes are expressed in at least 1 structure/region in the adult human brain based upon a sample of n=12 human brain hemispheres (2 hemispheres from 5 males and 1 female; age range: 24-57). I'm not sure if a sample size of 12 would provide adequate statistical power in that context, but at the very least that 85% value is consistent with the previous study they cited which found that 84% of genes were expressed in at least 1 structure/region in the adult human brain.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Expansion on sensory function

The article is already quite long, but I feel like the sensory functions are skipped over without a lot of coverage. I was wondering how othet editors would feel about additions related to temporal and parietal processing of sensory information.Petergstrom (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Petergstrom this is already a very long article that covers a great deal of information. I think this information might be better placed on Sensory system or even Nociception / Mechanoreceptor / Pressure. If you are going to edit this article, I think it might be best given past issues if you first post your planned edits so we can discuss it here first. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Human brain#Cognition (1st paragraph) & Human brain#Metabolism (1st & 3rd paragraphs)

Can someone proofread the 3 paragraphs listed above in these 2 sections? I recently added/modified content in those sections and they may require copyediting. The 1st paragraph in the metabolism section should be copyedited at some point to improve the coherence/flow of text IMO. I'd do it myself if I weren't a bit tired from editing. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting for Semi-protection?

Hi, we are talking here about a human brain so please portect it from vandlism and Thank You. Kero4000 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The page is already under pending changes protection. Since there doesn't appear to have been major vandalism for a while, this should suffice. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 06:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Can material from the right side of the brain be transferred to the left side.?

Can material from the right side of the brain be transferred to the left side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:202:100:1350:B536:CA38:C1F2:C3B0 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science is the place for questions like this. Article talk pages are intended to be used for discussion related to improving the article. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Paragraphs in lead

Re: [1] and [2], I made those changes to line breaks between paragraphs in the lead because it looked like something that needed cleanup after some previous reverted edits. In the edit window, I saw some places where sentences started on a new line, but that were not paragraph breaks, and that looked like a mistake to me. I just felt that I should explain that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. Your work as always is appreciated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say that. I think everyone who works on this important page is appreciated, and I just felt that maybe it had been unclear so I should explain why I made the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Separating content and WP:INTEGRITY

Regarding this, this and this, like I stated in the first link, when we separate content, such as splitting up a paragraph, we need to make sure that it's still attributed to a source. For example, the "Beneath the cortex is the cerebral" piece currently does not have a source attributed to it. Also see WP:INTEGRITY (about reference integrity). And it's also best to not add in anything unless it's sourced since we will get editors adding "citation needed" tags. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In the "Cerebrum" section, there is currently no source attributed to the following piece: "Beneath the cortex is the cerebral white matter. The largest part of the cerebral cortex is the neocortex, which has six neuronal layers. The rest of the cortex is of allocortex, which has three or four layers."

In the same section, there is currently no source attributed to the following piece: "Some sources include this with the basal ganglia."

My statements on this matter are not meant to offend. They are meant to make sure we keep the article in line with WP:Verifiability, WP:INTEGRITY, and keep people coming in and adding a "citation needed" tag because they don't know if the material is correct and/or because they simply like to see every aspect of an article sourced, especially if it is a WP:GA. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Made the two minor edits as reported. Wouldn't it have been simpler to repair these yourself Flyer, rather than take time out to give editing tuition to an experienced editor.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Not when I'm busy. I watch and edit a lot of articles on a given day, and, due to my huge watchlist, have a lot to catch up on when I go two days without editing Wikipedia. I did note that I would take care of the two pieces if no one else did. But I'm not going to always know which source supports what, especially if I don't have access to the source. So I am likely to add a different source in some cases. And I left in the unsourced piece in case you wanted to source it or I found a source for it. Also, I stated what I stated because you have moved around things before in a way that takes the text away from the source. I've done it. So have others. It's not always about how experienced an editor a person is. Furthermore, some experienced editors are more familiar with some policies or guidelines than others. Some have never seen the WP:INTEGRITY guideline, for example. Occasionally, you have also added unsourced material because it seems like a WP:Sky is blue case or because it's something you know and have not yet sourced. Again, a lot of experienced editors have done this. I'm of the opinion that "sky is blue" material doesn't need sourcing, but the vast majority of information about the brain is not "sky is blue" material. The reason I noted that "my statements on this matter are not meant to offend" is so that you would not take offense. I am not attacking you. I am never trying to attack you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I can handle being attacked but dislike being patronised which rightly or wrongly came across. anyway Best --Iztwoz (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely didn't mean to come across as patronizing, Iztwoz. Sorry about that. In my "09:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)" post, I was going to note that I didn't mean to come across as condescending if I did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What?!

What on earth do you mean by "greater mammals"? (under Comparative anatomy). "Greater" is not a scientific term: greater than what? And would need a source. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I trimmed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead refactoring

Hi folks, I'm thinking about refactoring the lead section (possibly working with in tandem with a new editor). To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Looking at the introduction to Human brain, there are six paragraphs with a lot of jargon. In its current form, it seems like a really poor introduction to the "Human brain" for many less advanced readers. Before I embark on this work, a few questions:

• Is there material currently in the lead section that simply must remain in the lead section?
• My instinct would be to move the extra material out of the lead and into the body somewhere, but is there extraneous material that we can simply delete?
• Are there regular editors on this article that have a strong objection to a newcomer editing this article?

I may provide more specifics before I start editing, but I'll be sure to check this talk page before I make changes to the article. -- RobLa (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi RobLa, there are a couple of regular editors here including myself and some you can see in the archives who I'll ping if required. We brought this article to GA a couple of years ago. This is a long and technical article, covering broad subject matter, and we've endeavoured to try and put enough content in the lead to achieve coverage of the major contents of this subject, and previously it's been difficult to trim the lead without missing out on some important sections (like, what is the brain, what does it do, what diseases affect it, and its importance in philosophy). I'm a huge supporter of simplification where possible (and wrote an essay on it: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY) but I would caution you that if you are planning on making changes to the lead, which has received a fair bit of editing, I'd implore you to make sure you are not destroying or altering the meaning of the text when you simplify it (which does occasionally happen when things are oversimplified). I absolutely invite you to edit this article, hope this context helps, I'd suggest if you are making major changes discuss them here first but of course that's just a recommendation and you're welcome to do what you'd like. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GA achieved in 2017?! Hard to believe three years have gone by already, that went really quick... --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead was limited to four paragraphs. But that was changed in 2019; see Talk:Human brain/Archive 3#Paragraphs in lead. As for the general rule, it is a general rule, but MOS:LEADLENGTH is clear that it's not an absolute rule and that "the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." It also has suggested lead lengths depending on an article's size. The lead needs to adequately summarize the article per WP:Lead. You can discuss here what parts of the lead you think should be cut. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Tom (LT) and Flyer22 Frozen. I'm not in a huge rush to change things, so you don't need to worry about me going on an editing spree today. But it seems to me that the "Human brain" article should have a much simpler, general-purpose introduction that isn't overly intimidating to people who don't have college degrees in neuroscience, per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (WP:MTAU). It seems like much of the content could be moved down to a new "Overview" section (or to the lead of the current Human brain#Structure section, which needs a lead). It may be that this article needs to be broken up into multiple articles, per Wikipedia:Article size (WP:LENGTH). Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Class assignment?

Helaine (Wiki Ed), given what is stated here, I have to query this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed) replied here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1543,AndreasVesalius'Fabrica,BaseOfTheBrain.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC) I've updated the image used in this article with the higher resolution image noted on the deletion page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MGBare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)