Wikipedia:Peer review/Functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was marked as C-Class on Neuroscience project quality scale and I would like it to reach B-Class at least.
Thanks, Dcdace (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comments from Biosthmors on the WP:LEAD
- Could you clarify what the peaks are detecting in the image? The caption is vague.
- Is "non-invasive technique" really critical for a the first words of WP:First sentence? I think we can get a better definition.
- Also, what is "brain activation"? This seems unclear to me.
- "fMRS uses MRI to detect X" seems to be a better format for the first sentence. And it would make the second sentence unnecessary.
- Instead of saying "The output typically is not represented as an image" can you first say what it mostly does then mention the rarer case?
- "That correspond to molecules". That's getting to a point of specificity that I like. What are the molecules doing, to generate the signals? Maybe we could link the concept article that describes what they are doing. Or describe in a bacgound section. WP:SS of a parent article, maybe?
- Ah, "metabolite dynamics". Sounds exciting, but what is it? Does it record chemical reactions?
- The word "currently" is used. We try to avoid that. See WP:CURRENTLY.
- There are several one sentence paragraphs in the lead. We try to avoid that.
- There are 15 citations in the lead. That's not a big deal, but anything that is in the lead should already be in the article (WP:LEAD). The idea is to cite things in the article, so that the lead isn't cluttered with unnecessary citations, generally speaking.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
- I hope these comments have been helpful!
Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and made this edit. "Non-invasive technique" is WP:Peacock sounding to me. Biosthmors (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Biosthmors. "Non-invasive" is not a peacock in this case but very crucial aspect for the technique which studies tissue metabolism. It is actually the main advantage over other techniques. --Dcdace (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression all MRI was non-invasive. Biosthmors (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's right. But to highlight it in other MRI techniques is not as important as in MRS. Because MRI gives just an image. How else could one get an image of slices of a living brain than non-invasive with MRI or CT. But tissue metabolism have been studied already before MRI techniques existed and only in an invasive manner. It is (or was) hard to imagine how can one measure concentration of tissue metabolites other than taking out a sample of tissue. But MRS does a "miracle" - measures metabolite concentration and other biochemical process in a living brain without invading a tissue. --Dcdace (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Technology is always doing cool things I guess. But a WP:First sentence (and an encyclopedia) is supposed to be as consice as possible. It seems from Human_brain#Metabolism there, for example, that fMRI and PET scans also show non-invasive images of brain metabolism. I don't think the phrase "non-invasive" is critical for a first sentence. Do you? Biosthmors (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- fMRI and PET do it very indirectly and as you say - shows images, noting else. But OK, I write about that in "Advantages" section, maybe that's enough. --Dcdace (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Technology is always doing cool things I guess. But a WP:First sentence (and an encyclopedia) is supposed to be as consice as possible. It seems from Human_brain#Metabolism there, for example, that fMRI and PET scans also show non-invasive images of brain metabolism. I don't think the phrase "non-invasive" is critical for a first sentence. Do you? Biosthmors (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's right. But to highlight it in other MRI techniques is not as important as in MRS. Because MRI gives just an image. How else could one get an image of slices of a living brain than non-invasive with MRI or CT. But tissue metabolism have been studied already before MRI techniques existed and only in an invasive manner. It is (or was) hard to imagine how can one measure concentration of tissue metabolites other than taking out a sample of tissue. But MRS does a "miracle" - measures metabolite concentration and other biochemical process in a living brain without invading a tissue. --Dcdace (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression all MRI was non-invasive. Biosthmors (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Biosthmors. "Non-invasive" is not a peacock in this case but very crucial aspect for the technique which studies tissue metabolism. It is actually the main advantage over other techniques. --Dcdace (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is "functional neuroenergetics"? It sounds like another buzzword. Can we make the article more straightforward, by using easier to understand and common language? Biosthmors (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neuroenergetics is an energy turnover required for brain to work. This term is used in literature on fMRS. But, yes, it might be too specific and not easily understandable term. I will think how to rewrite it in an easier language. If you have any ideas, you are welcome to change it. --Dcdace (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I changed "neuroenergetics" to "energy metabolism in the brain". And I added "The area under peaks in the spectrum represents relative concentrations of metabolites." to the first paragraph. --Dcdace (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neuroenergetics is an energy turnover required for brain to work. This term is used in literature on fMRS. But, yes, it might be too specific and not easily understandable term. I will think how to rewrite it in an easier language. If you have any ideas, you are welcome to change it. --Dcdace (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)