Talk:Neuroanatomy of intimacy

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Peer Review Article

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1

• Maybe link more well known neuroanatomy parts (EX: amygdala, hippocampus) so those who don't know what they are can learn about them
• Romatic Love, last sentence: Sentence sounds like is missing info. Probably should have info added or be rewritten to avoid confusion.
• Rejection in Love, The sentence, (Eating, sleeping, and neuroendocrine regulation was associated with the hypothalamus. Anhedonia was associated with the ventral striatum and the amygdala was associated with emotional processing, while other neuroanatomy, such as the paralimbic system and dorsal striatum/thalamus were shown to be altered in the brains in the grieving subjects. Other areas also included were cerebellum, anterior temporal cortex, insula, anterior cingulate, and prefrontal cortex.): Needs to be re-phrased.

Here is a suggestion: Eating, sleeping, and neuroendocrine regulation was associated with the hypothalamus, Anhedonia was associated with the ventral striatum and emotional processing was associated with the amygdala. Other neuroanatomy such as the paralimbic system and dorsal striatum/thalamus were shown to be altered in the brains in the grieving subjects. Other areas that registered symptoms of unrequited love also included the cerebellum, anterior temporal cortex, insula, anterior cingulate, and prefrontal cortex.

• Emotional processing, 3rd sentence in 2nd paragraph: I believe you need to add the word males to the begin of the sentence to define the locations where the positively valenced words are activated. Suggestion: Positively valenced words for males were activated in the left sensimotor cortex, angular gyrus...

4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 1

• Add sub sections for your bullet points in the Jealousy section so they appear on your table on contents.

8. Writing: 1

• Attachment, paragraph 1: signal ---> signals
• Lust, last sentence: Used the word (still) twice in the sentence. Sentence is confusing; hard to identify the take away point from it.
• Rejection in Love, there is no verb used in the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph
• Mother-child pair bond, first sentence: needs to be rephrased. Suggestion: Attachment between a mother and a child is an evolutionary mechanism where a mother cares and protects her children.
• Mother-child pair bond: there is a reference visible in its code format at the end of the whole section

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1

• Overall it is a very good article. The content is really interesting. I think it just needs a few changes to help improve the readability and clear up any confusion the article may have produced.

_________________________________
Total: 16 out of 20

SarahReed54 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bahar Rahsepar

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1

• Since your article is talking a lot about different anatomical organizations in the brain, it would be nice to have more hyperlink to those pages.
• Also for a better readability I suggest further separating and grouping of the article sections.

4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 1

• Format of references is not matching Wikipedia:Citing sources ( You addressed this already in your later versions)
• Headings are also not in agreement with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

8. Writing: 1

• There are various grammatical errors and typos in the text, revising them would help to follow the writing better.
• Some of the sentences are too long for the reader to follow.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1

• Article is interesting, but needs more attention about organization. Author did a nice job of adding pictures, but having a better labeled picture of the anatomical parts could help a lot specially since that this article is about anatomy.

_________________________________
Total: 16 out of 20
Bahar.rahsepar (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Article is very interesting and detailed. The user includes many subsections and sections to explain the topic properly.
2. Article size: 2
   20,322 bytes
3. Readability: 1
   Even though the article was easy to follow and readable, the user uses a lot of detailed anatomy that may be confusing. Also, the user can afford to put in more pictures of anatomy.
4. Refs: 2
   Great number of articles and credible sources. Awesome job!
5. Links: 1
   There were many links but it did not make it easy for a person to reference things they didn't know about. Try using more well-known neuroanatomy parts.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
   There were no recent comments.
7. Formatting: 2
   The user has enough separation with sections and subsections, and it was organized well.
8. Writing: 1
   The writing sometimes was not easy to follow, since there were terms that the reader could not understand. Pretend that the audience does not know anything about the topic beforehand. Also, watch out for grammar errors.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
   Username is a real name.
10. Outstanding?: 1
    Very good article, but make sure to put more pictures and explanations, since the writing was sometimes not easy to follow.

Total: 16 out of 20 --poornarajeevan (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Appreciation to Peer Reviewers

Thank you all so much for your detailed feedback. These comments were very helpful and made my page even more understandable and presentable for the entire Wikipedia community! Feel free to make any more comments if the page needs some more fine tuning. Also, I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving Ladeidramonetroberts (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)