Wikipedia:Peer review/Cerebellum/archive1

Cerebellum[edit]

User:Nrets and I have put a lot of work into this article. We think it may be featured article-worthy. We would appreciate wiki experts to comment on the layout, style, and graphics; writers to comment on our language; laypeople to comment on the level of comprehension (is it too technical?); and neuroscientists/anatomists to comment on the accuracy. Semiconscious (talk • home) 22:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I mean, just like, wow. Must be a great article - I hardly understood half of it ;)

Joking aside, it is clearly that the editors know what they are talking about. Personaly, I feel that a lot of this article goes straight over my head. For instance (and this is where I started having problems):

The embryonic cerebellum develops from the superior dorsal aspect of the rhombencephalon. In the mature mammalian brain, the cerebellum comprises a distinct structure at the back of the brain. The cerebellum is of archipalliar phylogenetic origin, shared as a prototypical brain structure by animals from the most elementary to the most advanced.

Well and good, but what does that mean in laymans terms? I am not saying the article must be dumbed down to the lowest common aspect, but perhaps a explonation in terms a layman can understand is needed (or explonation in parantheses, as you have done in some parts of the article)?

Apart from that, a good article, well written (the parts I could understand ;) ) and certainly well illustrated. I think it deserves a wide readership. WegianWarrior 07:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to make this section more clear, giving more simple examples that can be easily digested. Let me know what you think. I must say that it's certainly a pleasure to get this kind of feedback. Thank you my Norwegian friend; skoll! Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but still quite technical. Perhaps I just miss the right words, not having been educated in the field? Anyhow, it's more easily digestable than it was, without (I think) loosing it's factuality. Oh, and it's skål! =) WegianWarrior 09:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconscious - I think that this article is very close to featured quality, speaking from a reasonably informed scientist's perspective. I think this is a model for a well-written, technical article on neuroanatomy for Wikipedia. I appreciate the fascinating bits of information you throw in, like: "patients suffering archicerebellar lesions carry identification cards indicating the nature of their medical condition so as to avoid suspicion of public drunkenness by the police" and the clear writing in the dysfunctions section. Also, the pictures are great: clear schematics, well labeled, and a beautiful fluorescence image of Purkinje cells.

That being said, there are issues with this article: the anatomy section really is very, very technical. It's not unclear, it's just dense, but that's fine. But I think that you need to tie it together with a layman's overview which describes how the divisions, layers, penduncles, and deep nuclei interrelate. Leave the hardcore anatomy for neuroscience-interested people to look into. Also, the section on the cortical layers is very hard to follow. This is a tough section to write since the neural circuitry in the cerebellum is quite complex. However, our task as Wikipedians is to make this information as accessible as possible. I can try to help out with this, since I know something about the pathway, but try to think of ways of really outlining very clearly what the pathway means, and what a layman would need to understand from that section.

Two more smaller things: I would like to read a little bit more about the evolution of the cerebellum - you only have one sentence. Some more information would be very interesting. Also, there is little mention of the current unsolved mysteries about the cerebellum - after all, we really don't know much about it's function. I think that laying out the mysterious nature of the cerebellum would be a good way to draw a reader into the rest of the gory neuroanatomical details.

Great job, guys!! Mr.Bip 08:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Mr. Bip. I've tried to integrate your suggestions into the article: I think I've cleared up some of the technical language to make it a bit more friendly. As you said however, with a topic such as this it's difficult to avoid a certain level of jargon. The language must be spoken to get across the idea. If you can help with the cortical layers section I would greatly appreciate it, as I have no idea how to clean it up!
I've added more to the cerebellar evolution and development section. This is far from my area of expertise however, so I've not added much. I've also included a few statements scattered throughout — as well as a closing statement — that mention some of the current conundrums this structure presents to modern neuroscience.
Thanks for your excellent comments, man! Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nrets has cleaned up the cortical layers section, tying everything together really concisely. Semiconscious (talk · home) 08:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are people's thoughts about this going up as a FAC? I've never done it before, and I've never seen an article like this up there, so any advice and feedback would be great. Semiconscious (talk · home) 08:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been silent for days here, so I'm going to take a chance and send this over to FAC. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I've been busy and haven't taken the time to do a close reading of the article. I think this article is as ready for FAC as anything. You've made good changes, and the article looks professional. Go for it. Mr.Bip 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]