|
::I take it that the unsigned comments above are yours, Chiswick Chap? I wasn't expecting the article to be nominated at this point since an editor noted that more needed to be done first. I also noted that I wanted to add more, but that this shouldn't hold up a nomination. I commented that our leads are typically four paragraphs long, but that this article may be an exception. There have been discussions at the WP:Lead talk page that the lead does not always have to be limited to four paragraphs and the general rule should not be taken to be absolute. So my question is: Should we reduce the lead? And how? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My views are already expressed above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I know; I was simply giving my opinion on the lead, and asking about whether we should shorten it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Flyer22 Reborn, getting ready for an early 2018 GA review I thought I would nominate the article now, I do remember that discussion. I agree with you and do not think the lead is too long. The brain is a rich and complex organ, with a long article, and I think it warrants 5 paragraphs. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Tom (LT). I'm not sure if the lead should be reduced. But, yeah, I'm not strongly opposed to it remaining six paragraphs long. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for creating a History of the human brain article, I don't see that it's needed. I'm generally opposed to splits unless necessary, which is why I cite WP:No split and WP:Spinout when arguing against a split. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]I already stated that there is scope for a full (and potentially very long) article on the topic, and that a split is not today mandated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]I agree with you both here. A split can occur at a later date if needed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiswick Chap, what do you think of this edit I made regarding why the brain wrinkles? For previous discussion on the matter, see this one. I haven't yet added the different hypotheses, but I plan to...if no one beats me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That it is possibly worth a brief mention; that this is a curious moment for introducing it; and that instability (if substantial) is a ground for failing a GAN. If you insist on going ahead, please be rapid, and brief, both in the article and here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By "a curious moment for introducing it," you mean the timing? As noted in the aforementioned linked discussion, it was there before, and I wanted to add more on it before a GA nomination. I was not expecting the GA nomination to happen without another heads up. There have been no objections to including it. In the aforementioned discussion, Seppi333 stated, "I don't see the harm in saying 'Scientists still do not have a clear answer as to why it later wrinkles and folds, but a number of hypotheses have been proposed.' Stating that the purpose of folding is currently unknown is informative. However, if any hypotheses or further detail is added, it should probably be cited to a fairly recent (i.e., 2015 or newer) neuroscience review to ensure that we aren't adding out-of-date information." I noted that I'm not sure that there are any fairly recent reviews on these hypotheses. There has been no edit warring on the addition. Because the article is stable in terms of changes, except for the changes being made as a result of this GA review, I don't see why the article would need to be failed over this aspect. If by "instability," you were specifically talking about the matter being expanded, I can hold off on expanding it and can do so after the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a little more. I think that is all I will add on the matter for now, but adding more would not be against the stability listing at WP:GA criteria. I'm not sure if I should name any of the examples that the source does with regard to diseases/neurological disorders, since we address this type of thing in the Clinical significance section and I'd rather not WP:Overlink. I also know that there is a push by some activists to not view autism as a disease or disorder; so I am wary of how to categorize it these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting discussion. I have tried to cover in a short about some developmental disorders and mental health disorders. It is difficult to cover them in great depth because, although they obviously involve the brain, I do not believe the underlying mechanisms are fully understood and I am reticent to speculate on this secondary article... and also cognizant of the implicit bias that we will be implying if we cover these as "brain disorders". --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "this secondary article"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap, I'm not clear on why you've struck through our above comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's because we settled those issues? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiswick Chap, I've noticed that you prefer not to use accessdates for book sources. As seen at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 22#Adding access-date parameter to book citations, there is disagreement on whether or not to do so. It seems to be a matter of preference for editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For consistency, and since editors seem okay with forgoing accessdates in this case, I will make sure not to add them when adding book references to this article. That is, unless consensus on the matter changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
.png){kind=link}