Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive1

Brain edit

This article about the most important part of the body has much improved. It has an excellent illustration for the cover page. --EncephalonSeven 05:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brain (archive) --Andrew Levine 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object. 'Brain Regions in Vertebrates' subsection is a long list which needs converting into prose and written into detailed explanation for every link it contains. The Notes section needs to be a numbered list instead of bullet list. Image:Brains.jpg is missing a license template. External links section needs to be at the bottom below the Refs and Notes sections. — Wackymacs 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just changed the Notes to a numbered list and moved External links - The Catfish 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object and comment. Main objection occurs under the Brain Regions in Vertebrates list, where all of the parts of the brain should receive some sort of explanation besides what it stands for in Greek. Putting the greek definitions for the parts of the brain probably isn't the most relevant way to describe the regions. Also, many parts of the sublists are either capitalized or placed in bold font, which isn't incorrect, but is overused especially under the subdivisions of the brain. As for the comment, first off the Related topics is generally called See also. Virtuallly all of the links in the Invertebrates section are red and don't have any article at all. Usually, the History section of an article comes closer to the top as opposed to its location in the bottom of the article. Also, in the The biology of the brain section, the summary is placed at the end; perhaps it would be better to shift it upwards so that readers don't have to read the entire thing just to find there was a succint summary at the bottom. Some of the paragraphs in the history section could use a tiny bit of improvement; most are just 2 sentences. Other than that, it's okay. AndyZ 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The intro is too long and disjointed. The history section should come immediately after the intro. The brain regions section clutters up the page and it already has its own article over in list of regions in the human brain. Pathology is strangely listed before anatomy, so people have no clue what is being said. Wikification is disjointed and repetative with weird capitalizations. Phrases such as "the human brain is a collection of 100 billion neurons, each linked with up to 25,000 others" in the intro have no reference whatsoever... Ugh. I hate to be a shit but a lot of work needs to be done before this goes to FA. I'll work on fixing what I can over the next few days or so. Semiconscious (talk · home) 09:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From this discussion, it appears that someone experienced in wikipedia formatting should reorganize the article. It could be polished further then. --68.55.196.15 18:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article needs a lot of work. While some subsections are great, the article needs to be reorganized considerably. Also, the internal logic has to be made-consistent. For example the intro states that invertebrates use ganglia rather than brains, but then the article spends a lot of time talking about invertebrate brains. There are a lot of unsourced facts, and a lot of extraneous information. Some of the headings have nothing to do with the section that follows them, see for example The importance of the brain. The sections that follow are general descriptive paragraphs about brains that state nothing about its importance. Importance for what?? Also some subsections occur at weird places and out of order. The list of brain regions should really be taken out and linked to its own article, the section should then be converted to a paragraph outlining the MAJOR subdivisions and the logic behing the various ways of subdividing the brain (eg. anatomical, developmental, functional). This should ideally be accompanied by a helpful diagram. The only useful diagram in the article is the one of a neuron, and the intro picture is nice. The other 2 are basically 'fluff' and convey no useful information related to the article. I think all the elements are there to make a great article, but it still needs tons of work. I'll be happy to work to improve the article over the next few weeks and will contribute where I can, but as of now it certainly is not ready for FA. Nrets 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object - needs reorganizing, needs a lot of pictures (I know it's hard to get them; btw I think we have a featured animation of human brains), needs clear & simple clasification & description of brains in different organisms (now it has overhelmingly too much about humans/mammals). Renata3 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]