Talk:Stratum lucidum of hippocampus

message: First I think you guys picked an interesting topic. I really enjoyed reading it and it was different as compared to other topics so good job choosing it. I liked how you had really simple writing style to make it easy for the readers to understand. It was straightforward and understandable. I think you could probably add a little more information however, it seemed a little limited but maybe there is not enough information out there. There are two links right in the beginning that do not work (red- stratum pyramidale and stratum radiatum)so take a look at those and either take them out or try to find different links. You also mentioned about mossy fibers in the intro, but the reader might not know what they are so I think you should have at least one sentence explaining what they are in the introduction to help the reader. I do understand you explain it in a paragraph after but try to explain it quickly right away as well. Try to add some pictures also, I did see one link to a picture. The section about what/where for the stratum pyramidale and stratum radidatum could be combined into one section. There just is not enough information in the stratum radiatum section to have it be its own I think. Overall, good introduction and overall information. I liked how the sections were divided and titled to make it easy to read. Seems like you covered a good quantity of information for the topic. I also liked how you talked about the interneurons because that explains the neurobiology aspect of your topic. Great work! Muhippolover (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: The article does a good job of explaining things so that it is easy to understand, which is good especially since this article is in a widely used online encyclopedia. It would be good if you could find a picture to include with the article as a thumbnail, though I'm sure it is hard to find on wikimedia. The stratum pyramidile and the stratum raiatum that you linked don't exist on wikipedia so they show up red. You can just unlink them in the article and it'll look better. Also, there were quotes in some of the sections which didn't seem like they needed to be quoted. If it is a direct quote from a source then you should cite it in the same sentence, but since they were usually only a few words I feel like you can go without the quotes by rewording and putting a citation lnk at the end. In all very good. Awesomepossum12 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: This article is very well written in terms most people can understand. I would like to see more links, specifically to granule cells and Purkinje cells (witch I believe might be misspelled in the interneurons section) and to the mossy fiber wiki page if available. I would like to see the “function within the nervous system” section brought above or right below the “location” section. I feel that this would give more logical flow to the article, which would then explain more of the specifics. Like the others said, take out the bad links to make it look more wiki-professional. A picture would be nice; I found one picture on the wiki commons section that showed an underside view of the brain with red highlighted hippocampus region. Just go to wiki commons and type in “hippocampus”. Otherwise the article was great, no major revisions needed!SCarolina55 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review 3

message: General Comments: This is a great article about a very difficult and complex subject matter to explain. I think you've done a good job so far in explaining the topic especially without being able to find a huge number of sources.
1. Well-Written: There are a few issues that could be fixed once this article is proof-read. In the introduction it looks like pyramidal might be misspelled as "pyramid", in the "Location" section "Stratum" is misspelled, and in the "Interneurons in the Stratum Lucidum" section "Purkinje" is misspelled. Also instead of having What/where sections, the article might benefit from having sub-sections simply labeled "Stratum Pyramidale", "Stratum Radiatum", and "Mossy Fibers". Apart from these minor details, this article is very well written! It is explained a way that anyone coming to it for the first time can understand it and has great organization. The sections and sub-sections are very helpful to learning everything that encompasses this topic. The composition section is especially helpful. Great job!
2. Verifiable with no original research: All of the information appears to come from trustworthy sources. However, there are moments where the article goes long distances without citing any sources. The Interneurons section needs citations for both the information provided and the quotations used. The introduction, Stratum Radiatum, and the Stratum Pyramidale don't have any sources either. The sources used appear to be in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I think Wikipedia (source 3) qualifies as a tertiary source.
3. Broad in Coverage: This article does a good job of explaining the major points of this topic well. The article breaks up the major components of the topic and goes into detail about each section. The section at the end is especially impressive when talking about the article being broad in coverage because it brings everything back to it's "Function within the nervous system". The other sections all contained useful information while staying broad.
4. Neutral: This article does not contain any bias at all. It consistently provides information about the subject matter.
5. Illustrated: Right now there aren't any pictures, however a couple of the sources you use have pictures. However, Wikimedia doesn't appear to have any pictures of the Stratum Lucidum of the Hippocampus. The article would be easier to understand if there were pictures, even if it were just a picture of the hippocampus (which Wikimedia does have) towards the top of the article to give the reader a point of reference. However, the "Location" section links to a great picture! If Wikipedia allows it, it might be better for the article to include the actual picture (while citing the source) rather than just the link to the picture. If it's possible.
Source Verification: I took a look at source 4, "Interneurons in the stratum lucidum of the rat hippocampus". This appears to be a primary source. It discusses "using patch-pipette recordings combined with biocytin staining" for it's methods and then talks about the results later on. Taking a look at Wikipedia's guidelines, if this is a primary source, it can't be used for a whole lot. It's possible that the article was used in a Wikipedia safe way (for very specific types of quotations, maybe) in the "Interneurons in the Stratum Lucidum" section, but more citations will have to be added to that section. It also appears that sources 4 and 5 are the same source. I think this article might help when it comes to repeated citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations.--D23sunn (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Review

message: 1. This article was fairly well written. The what/where sections could use further clarification and a more permanent/descriptive title. Also, the article is quite technical, and the introductory paragraph could be more general. For example, the term "mossy fiber projections" is used twice in the introductory paragraph and aren't explained until section 2.3. I would also double-check your technical spelling. For example, "Purkinje cell" was misspelled "Pukinje cell" in the "Interneurons in the Stratum Lucidum" section.
2. The article has quality sources, however they could be cited within the article more often. There are large paragraphs that could be broken up by the sources they relate to. Also, this article could use a lot more links to other active Wikipedia articles. For example, technical terms such as "Purkinje cell" could be linked to, and terms such as "mossy fibers" should be linked to the first time they are mentioned (I.e., in the introductory article).
3. This article may have been a little too broad. The composition section contains articles that seem to be a little too large without directly relating back to the topic. Ideally, these sections would be trimmed and refocused a little bit, while the section focusing on the function within the nervous system is expanded. Lack of sources may limit this, however.
4. I did not see any bias within the article. It did not seem like there were two opposing viewpoints to weight.
5. This article is in definite need of some pictures. I would recommend a picture within the article to show the location of the hippocampus within the brain, and a different picture (not a link, but within the article) to show the location of the stratum lucidum within the hippocampus. Furthermore because so many different cell types are discussed, another picture to show an example of one of the types of cells that reside within the stratum lucidum may be a good way to break up the second half of the article.
6. I chose the 5th source, (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291096-9861%2819970901%29385:3%3C427::AID-CNE7%3E3.0.CO;2-5/pdf), as my source to review. The source is not a secondary source. It is a primary source. The source is a paper that characterizes what types of neurons are in the stratum lucidum. While this is a fairly general and wide in scope primary source, it is not a review of the study, but the study itself. The information cited within the Wikipedia article does seem to be correct with the source, however.
SamSchultz1 (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Review #2

message: Overall this was a well written article that got to the point, which would allow someone searching the topic to get a sense of what the Stratum lucid of the hippocampus is and what its function is. I think there needs to be more links in the article, some suggestions would be to link Purkinje fibers/cells, Mossy fibers, glutamate, rosette, local circuit neurons, hilar regions. I would look at your citations to ensure they are done correctly, as well as reference those sources more than once. An image might also be nice, but I know those are hard to come by in terms of copyright issues. This looks as though it is a a tough topic in finding a great deal of sources, but I would say you have done a great job in explaining and providing information with what you have gathered. (LucasTichawa (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: 1. Well Written- the article is very well written and flows nicely- good job! However I did notice a few grammatical mistakes and spelling errors in the introduction and in the "Locations" section of your article. For example, "unmyelinated" is spelled "unmylinated," and "statum" instead of "stratum." If one of you proofs the article one more time you should be able to catch these errors and correct them.
2. Verifiable with No Original Research- All of the information in the article appears to come from reliable sources. I think you guys need to link your page to other current Wikipedia articles. In the "Location" section of your article, you talk a lot about the different regions of the hippocampus, such as CA3 and CA2. A reader with no background information could be very confused by this, (even I am to an extent), so it might be a good idea to link those to current Wikipedia pages. You could easily do this when proofing for grammatical errors!
3. Broad in Coverage- The article does a good job explaining all of the major points that it needs to discuss, so nice job there. I like how the "Function Within the Nervous System" section is at the end. All of your other sections relates back to it and it acts like a nice conclusion section to your article. One thing I would consider looking into is what happens when you damage this portion of the hippocampus. It may be hard to find, depending on how much information is available on the topic.
4. Neutral- I did not get the impression that there was any bias in the article.
5. Illustrated- There is definitely a need for illustration here. Both of the two primary reviews above me gave some great illustration ideas. Also, you talk a lot about Purkinje cells so it may be a good idea to incorporate a photo of those if possible. The diagram that you have linked is helpful in your Location Section so if you could incorporate that onto your page I think that would be very beneficial.
Source Verification- I chose the second source, (http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu/cere/text/P4/mossy.htm), as my source to review. The source is a secondary source- it provides an overview of the circuitry and layers of the cerebellum. The authors did a good job at citing it correctly and saying what the source said. They did a good job at filtering through the information and including only the parts that were crucial to their article. 
MKClement (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Review #3

message: So I guess without having worked on this topic this is a hard blanket statement for me to say, but for the benefit of actually critiquing you guys versus sugar coating it I must ask, isn't there any more info on this. I know there are some really obscure topics that could be chosen from but the article seems a little bit information deficient. If it was a super hard topic to find info for then just ignore me. As for organizing the page I would love to see some more bullet points it makes the articles a lot easier to read for people without an extensive scientific pedigree. Also I don't know if you guys have intentions to do this still but pictures definitely help. They add a nice flow to the article, and if you could get some information on some diseases related to the stratum I think that would make it a more relatable topic for readers.--5602krauseb (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: I think you guys are off to a good start, but could definitely do a couple things to improve the article overall. I don't know how much information you were able to find, but the article seems a bit short and could use a bit more information. I think it would also benefit from a picture or diagram maybe of the brain or the hippocampus just to give the readers an idea of the location of the Stratum lucid in relation to the rest of the brain. Otherwise I thought the article was well written and organized. Lambchop22 (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: ===Primary review one===
Thank you for your review of our article. You will find that we added an additional photo of the hippocampus to compliment our article. 
===Primary review two===
Thank you for the technical suggestions, we will be sure to fix them. Small errors like this are easy to fix but sometimes had to catch when editing your own work!
Other people have mentioned that we should link to some more terms in our article, like purkinje cell, and we are doing that. We have added other links to hippocampus anatomy and so on. 
Our article is broad because we had a topic that was very anatomically based in terms of supporting areas, but not that much information DIRECTLY relating to the stratum lucidum, which made it difficult to go into depth about just the stratum lucidum with out not saying anything. You are correct however, it is a little bit overlapping with other areas, but as a group we do not think that it takes away from our article. 
Nope no bias!
Surprisingly, it did not originally come to mind to add pictures, but we are definitely jumping on that band wagon since it is something that obviously enhances articles and is not to difficult to do! Thank you for your suggestions; we chose to put in a picture detailing the regions of the hippocampus and where they are located in relation to our topic. 
The article you looked at is fairly broad, yes. This is a testament to how much supporting evidence for our topic is available and how much all these topics integrate into each other with relation to the stratum lucidum. It is difficult to talk about just the stratum lucidum with out referencing intertwining topics to clearly get our point across! We did of course correctly use the information we found and cite it according to procedure. 
Thank you for taking the time to give us suggestions! Much appreciated :)
===Primary review three===
We proofread the article again and made changes as necessary. You will also find we added additional links in the location section- great advice. The information on the topic was very limited for our specific topic of the Stratum Lucidum. The information we could find was very anatomically based so incorporation the physiology of this region of the hippocampus was not something we could accurately do. We had a lot of problems with uploading the image that we have linked, but we did incorporate a new image of the hippocampus. Thank you for your review. 
Johnsep12 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Replies

message: We proofread the article again and made changes as necessary. You will also find we added additional links in the location section- great advice. The information on the topic was very limited for our specific topic of the Stratum Lucidum. The information we could find was very anatomically based so incorporation the physiology of this region of the hippocampus was not something we could accurately do. We had a lot of problems with uploading the image that we have linked, but we did incorporate a new image of the hippocampus. Thank you for your review. 
Johnsep12 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary review three