Talk:Longitudinal fissure

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zshaw149, RaubieR, NinaLopergolo, Jpeloquin17, Lucinda Murray, Nrcsikai. Peer reviewers: Jhelbing, Khyatipatel98, MillerNick, Michael Newman29, Algarnihala1, Zcatalano44.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Translations

• Greek: διαμήκης σχισμή — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8235:7E00:A45C:93DB:A9E7:9A8B (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

medial and median

'Medial' and 'lateral' are correlates for parts of an organ on one side of the body, often a paired organ. 'Median' contrasts with 'paired', not with 'lateral'. 'Median' objects are not merely medial to lateral objects; they are unpaired, in the midline.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Corpus callosotomy CANNOT be 'pharmacologic' treatment?

As far as I can tell, a corpus callosotomy cannot be a pharmacologic treatment (for treating intractable epilepsy cases), as stated in the article at this time, since it is a SURGICAL procedure. If no one has information that it is in fact pharmacologic, I'll fix that entry by changing it to surgical. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

How deep is the longitudinal fissure?

In a human, how deep is the longitudinal fissure from the top of the brain down to the corpus callosum? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review of Article

The added content improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. The article is more complete. Strengths of the added content added include relevant material and well organization. The added content can be improved through better organization of "additional images." Khyatipatel98 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

The tone is scientific, the article doesn't feel as if it directs me to a certain point of view. Strengths include good organization, relevant and helpful images and the content added is relevant and to the point. More length and detail as well as a better description of its relevance in the brain as a whole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Newman29 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)