Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuroplasticity/archive1

Neuroplasticity

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a seminal topic in neuroscience today. Articles appear almost daily in HHMI, ScienceDaily, and EurekAlert about Neuroplasticity and a search in any library database brings up scores of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. The most important work on this subject has been done within the past 10 years. In its present state, the article is rather sketchy, and as one reader observed on the discussion page, it "lacks soul." I have made some minor efforts at revision within the past two days. I have been working on a research paper for an undergraduate class, and therefore have done a great deal of reading on current findings in the field. My progress has been somewhat impeded by the fact that everything is written either for the rank lay person (completely unschooled in the sciences) or for fellow neuroscientists. A comprehensive article on Neuroplasticity would be a great boon to the public on every level. Just think: The brain can rewire itself...! This has been extensively documented and is something that everyone needs to know about.

Another reason for my request: Synaptogenesis, one form of Neuroplasticity, has earned a deserved HIGH ranking in importance, although Neuroplasticity is the more inclusive topic.

Thanks, FrancineEisner (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

I am having trouble fully understanding the topic. It's a great subject, but it needs to be explained in plain English for it to be useful to the average person.
The lead is quite short, and it seems it includes some information not in the rest of the article. The lead should be a concise summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
Maybe rename "Brain plasticity and cortical maps" to "History" ? Most Wikipedia articles have a History section, and it seems to be what readers expect.
Please look at WP:MOS to ensure the article meets the guidelines. Don't link words in section headings. The External links section should be a list with no bolding.
The footnotes, what there are of them, need formatting properly using {{Citation}}. See WP:CITE.
I see plenty of uncited paragraphs. A general rule of thumb is to add a footnote to every claim, statement, fact, quote, paragraph, etc. See WP:RS and WP:V.
If you can, try to use academic or scientific journals or published books to cite this article—much better than random websites and web pages.
It seems you intend to rewrite most of this, so I won't go through the prose. Also seems a lot of expansion is needed, as long as new content can be sourced.
Hope my brief "review" has helped!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Wackymacs, I left a comment on your talk page, but on reconsideration I think you've given me a good deal of info that will assist my improving the article. I will put in a "History" section; that was my instinct in my own (unpublished) essay done for an undergraduate course.

I realize that I'll need to cite the original articles; I'll be able to access them from my university's library database, but I wanted to make a "quick fix" and the use of the ScienceDaily web site (actually press releases for the original articles) was what I was able to come up with "on the fly."

What I intend to do is to produce a new page which omits terminology specific to statistics and neuroscience as much as is humanly possible. Please feel free to offer comments as you wish.

Best, FrancineEisner (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, just as long as you an keep it all referenced. Let me know if you have trouble finding a reference you need, since I have access to Thomson Gale Infotrac, EBSCOhost and other databases. However, I would be careful if this topic is changing rapidly, as that might make information out-of-date very quickly, and it might make the article unstable in the future. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - IMO your comments are right on target. I also appreciate your offer. So far, my university library has served me well, except for a few references which have abstracts on the ScienceDirect database but lack available full-text articles (!?) Perhaps they are available somewhere else. I've also been pondering a method of reconciling how labile the topic is. There could be one section (designed to be constantly updated) listing the most current findings, especially on a molecular and cellular level. The rest of the article could remain quite stable, except of course for the edits inevitable in Wikiland,lol.FrancineEisner (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]