Talk:Pia mater

message: *I have made a few edits to titles to avoid redundancy with title of article. Also: no caps but the initial one in titles.
*There is no need to have the <"br"> after each sentence or paragraph, or after a title: simply by pressing twice "enter" you will have a paragraph.
::I have eliminated the br in the first section to leave it as an example of the usual wikipedia style. Would be great if you (Boston students mainly) could further follow the example over the article
*It is quite odd to have references and notes: what is the intention for that?
I will post more comments as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I'll try to make more comments, but if you have specific questions feel free to contact me.--Garrondo (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fast comments

message: Somebody (a Boston student I suppose) posted the following comment at my talk page:
Hi Garrondo, I am working on the Pia Mater page, and was just wondering whether the function section should be broken up into more discrete subcategories, and also whether or not we are starting to get into obscure detail tailored to people in the sciences rather than a general audience? 
Since he had not signed in I can not know who he/she is; so I am going to answer here.
The function section is quite long at this point and its paragraphs are also quite long and dense so I believe it is a good idea to divide it into subsections. 
Regarding detail: wikipedia is aimed to a (more or less) general audience, although this is under debate regularly (for example from people writing maths articles). Additionally another of its problems in my opinion is that there are many articles which put quantity above quality. You should talk with your teacher, since he is the one who is finally going to evaluate you. However in my opinion there is no necessity to go into "obscure details" while there are many, many, many things that can be polished right now in the article (style, images, language, links, sources...) . Quantity right now is probably enough for GA but qualitatievely is probably quite "drafty". I would rather try to polish the article which should not impede from adding some content as this is done.--Garrondo (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said! :) To the students: Make sure you sign your posts by using the four tildes NeuroJoe (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case problem was that they had not even signed into wikipedia.--Garrondo (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions at my talk page

message: I found your article updates very extensive and informative; however, I do have a few comments/suggestions for improvement.  I really like how clear and concise your explanations are, and I found the organization of the article (with the different subheadings) to be helpful in guiding my reading.  I did think the function section was a bit long (I'm not sure if any of the information could possibly be included in another main topic), but I understand that there are a lot of functions to the pia mater, so it made sense that they were all there.  I liked the section on evolution, but I think it would also be informative if you mentioned the development of the pia mater.  I'm not sure if this information is available or if you came across anything but just a thought.  Furthermore,  for the pathology section, it seems as though meningitis and meningioma are the only pathologies that can result from problems with the pia mater.  If there are other pathologies or other problems that can arise from problems with the pia mater, it would be helpful if you made it more clear that other pathologies exist, even if you don't go into extensive detail about them.  Overall, I thought it was a really great article!  My only other suggestion is that you link to the glia limitans because it is a neighbor of the pia mater. Katie44gb (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review/Comments

message: Hi guys, nice job with the topic, it's much better than when you started. A few points:
*In the Evolution section you use another encyclopedia as a reference. As stated here, tertiary sources such as encyclopedias shouldn't be used for detailed discussion like this. 
*In the Pathology section, meningismus should be hyperlinked to its article page.
*In the Structure section, Extracellular should not be capitalized. 
NeuroJoe (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Boston College BI481 Project

message: In the summary and under the section Structure, it is stated that the pia mater is impermeable to fluid. In the section Permeability, the opposite is written, namely that [d]ue to the ependyma and pia mater’s high permeability, nearly anything entering the CSF is able to enter the brain interstitial fluid. Which one is true?
Almutei (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permeability 

message: Some authorities refer to brain matter as being gray, others such as the Famous Boston writer D.F.Wallace  say it is pink "cloudy pia-mater pink" actually, so what color is it? QuentinUK (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  color 

message: I've seen that there is pia inside choroid plexus, and I can't for the life of me figure out how it gets there, since pia is on the outside of the brain, and ventricles with choroid plexus are on the inside of the brain (except in relation to the 4th ventricle, which is in the dorsal aspect of the brain stem, and therefore adjacent to the pia). So I'm conjecturing that maybe the pia follows blood vessels into the brain, but I haven't found anything which verifies that. I've read some about the perivascular space, but I'm not sure that answers my question. Does anyone know if pia follows blood vessels into the brain? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does pia follow blood vessels into the brain?