Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain (archive)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Brain (previous nomination) edit

When I came to this article it had already been largely developed by WikiProject Science. I have simply been chunking out some important parts (so it is a partial self-nomination). This article has been through Peer Review and meets all of the featured article criteria. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. --Oldak Quill 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the references need to be tidied up. I would like to see some merging of the "Notes" and "references" sections so that a single "References" section referenced inline from the page arises. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations and Wikipedia:Footnotes. Alex.tan 16:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it not be easier to keep the references section as it is (apart from templatising them) and just move all the notes links inline [http://...etc.? All of the references are relevent to the whole article.--Oldak Quill 16:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: I have now cleaned these up. --159.92.101.18 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:Rabbit brain pl.png has no source or copyright information, and no, "From Polish Wikipedia" doesn't cut it. --Carnildo 20:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • image removed. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have verified that all images in the article are free - I have added some more at relevent points. --Oldak Quill 08:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectSupport The article is great. I have however some objections.
    • It should be clear already in the head that the article is not only about the anatomy the brain of animals but about the brain in more general sense (food, artificial intelligence)
    • The titles are funny but not explicit enough. I suggest to change "A smart device" and "Inside brains" with something more telling like "the functions of the brain" and "Anatomy of the brain". The same for the title "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature": they sound a bit strange to me. Why not "Brains of animals" and "Brains of human beings"?
    • Myths. I like very much the two first myths and their explanations. Why aren't there any explanations following the next ones. A short comment about why those a myths would improve the article.
    • Food. The article is missing many French food based on the brain like the calf head (tête de veau).

Vb 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe I have sorted out all of your objections: I have expanded to lead section to consider the study for artificial intelligence and use as food; I have renamed "inside the brain" to "The biology of the brain", do you have any suggestions as to what "A smart device" could be changed to?; I have moved the "Myths" section to the human brain article as it was not general enough; and I have expanded food to include tête de veau and a couple of other foods. --Oldak Quill 12:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK It's now better but the titles "A smart device", "Brains in medicine" and "Brains in nature" are really too odd to me. You should really change this. What belong to human brain and brain is not made clear. Maybe should you make a subsection called "human brain" with main article "human brain". Vb 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see your point over "A smart device" but am not sure why there is anything wrong with "...in medicine" and "...in nature"? --Oldak Quill 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: I have now changed all of the titles you suggest should be changed and then some for greater uniformity and sense. I have also added a "human brain" section which is linked to the main article. --Oldak Quill 00:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support OmegaWikipedia 12:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object—Very poorly written. I've edited the opening, but I'm finding that there's a looseness in more than the use of language; it's deeper than that, involving scientific looseness.

For example:

Why is psychology 'less direct' than neuroscience in its study of the brain? This needs to be worded carefully to be credible.
'There have also been attempts and research into simulating it (artificial intelligence) to achieve a new, more efficent, generation of computing'—please remove most of the occurrences of 'also', which are redundant. 'Attempts into simulating'? Doesn't make sense. 'Attempts and research'? 'it (artificial intelligence)' is clumsy. Would this research produce an old generation of computing?
'Humans have also put the brain to use as an ingredient in various world cuisines and tribal rituals.' Suddenly we're talking about cannibalism, at the end of a leading paragraph that covers the related scientific fields ....
'neural control is executed by collections of ganglia'—'control is executed' is awkward.
'usually used'—come on, you shouldn't be writing jingles like that.
'information about the human brain in specific'—do you mean 'specifically'?
'Functions of the brain are responsible for cognition'—Do you mean 'The brain is responsible ...'?

Every sentence needs surgery. Withdraw and find collaborators to tighten the whole thing up. We need a FA on the brain. (PS If you want more examples, I'll just go through and pick out some more shockers. But you get the thrust of what I'm saying, don't you?) Tony 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments concerning the article - you certainly seem qualified to make them :). I will be going through the article tonight and tomorrow to thoroughly clean up the English. I'll leave you a message when I'm done. --Oldak Quill 09:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Update: I and several others have now significantly copyedited the article, I will be making some finishing touches after my train journey home.[reply]
      • The article has now been extensively copyedited, I hope you consider it in a better state. --Oldak Quill 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - As said above, needs improvements in writing style. --WS 15:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support, I would like to see the writing style improved but there is no such thing as a perfect article. Falphin 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm not going to say why i object because 1, I have the right to, & 2, Everyone would try & berate me into supporting, which I don't need. Mainly cause it's too short. Spawn Man 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an inactionable objection, so is ignored. --87.80.42.198 09:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See what I mean?.... If you read closely you would see that I put the words MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S TOO SHORT, did you see it now? My objection is because it is too short mr. I'm Going To Ignore It. You can't ignore it. It is actionable & is correct. SO THERE..... *Some people get my blood boiling...........* Spawn Man 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In what way is this article too short?! In no way is it too short. Perhaps you are referring to particular sections? If so, please say which ones. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Too short" is an inactionable objection because it does not indicate how the article could be fixed. The article could be made longer by thesaurusizing it. It could be made longer by adding lorem ipsum in strategic locations. It could be made longer by using a larger font, or wider margins, or by double-spacing the lines. What do you want? --Carnildo 23:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. Also keep in mind that the article is already 34 kB, over the recommended size. I will expand the "Function" section as suggested below today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better now; I've gone through down to the end of 'animal brains'—please see my inline comments. Plus: 'compare with' for contrasts, 'compare to' for similarities. Tony 02:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section on fuction is still too short for me. Scientists are still unlocking mysteries of the brain & all we have is a small little section on function? Watch some BBC, Human Body, episodes then come back to it.... Spawn Man 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs lots of work. Can you retitle the section 'Importance of the brain'? This implies that the following section 'Biology of the brain' is not important. Can you do something about the caption for the mouse brain (which I reworded—now it's visually awkward). Tony 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I'll be making amendments today. --Oldak Quill 13:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object: seems OK, only the following needs a source: "Humans enjoy unique neural capacities, but much of the human neuroarchitecture is shared with ancient species" - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object This does need to be rewriten, but when that's done, you're good. So when these complaints stop, so does mine.

  • Weak Object- I think it needs an evolutionary history (a paragraph or so- when did brains first evolve). Also, "Other matters" is a poor name for a section (a broader discussion of philosophical and computer science would be nice and that section seems to aproximate that, but isn't named so and isn't sufficiently fleshed out). This is a really broad subject and such large topics are hard to feature. The "brain as food" section seems random, but i guess it isn't bad. Broken S 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Brain_(archive)&oldid=1079086849"