Talk:Circumventricular organs

message: Hello there! I am Darla DeVito and I will be editing this page along with my partners Susana Benitez and Luke Ollila as part of a class project. As students of Professor Burdo's of Boston College BI481 Introduction to Neuroscience course we will be attempting to make this page more accurate. This project is part of a larger goal of the Society of Neuroscience to provide better information regarding neuroscience and related topics to Wikipedia users. Please excuse the many edits that will be occurring in the following weeks. To see the guidelines of our project please click here.  —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

message: Hey guys.  Great article.  Really well done.  Just like to point out a few things.  First I think i spotted a typo in your introduction where I think the 2nd sentence should be split into two after "blood flow" and before "additionally" where the comma is located.  Also, I think you guys should get rid of " – hence its name" as it comes of a little rude and superflous.  I also suggest making more hyperlinks.  One example is in section for SFO anatomy in the third paragraph for endothelin.  I recommend that you read through your article again to try and fix the neutrality issues in the writing since there are a few instances where it can appear that you are giving your opinion.  One example is in the SFO anatomy section where you state "This seems logical."  Another example is in section SFO function where it says "It is no surprise."  This seems like an opinion and is not neutral.  Overall the content of the article is very interesting and informative but I suggest edits be made to make the article be more neutral. Neal.shah.bc (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Reviews

message: Good article overall and it provided a lot of information. Because of this I mainly focused on grammarical points, capitalization, and other things that I found. If you disagree with any of my suggestions, please do respond because I may be unknowinly making a mistake myself. I apologize for the lenght of this review.
To start, the capitalization of terms somtimes disagrees throughout the article. For instance, when you mention the "Sylvian aqueducts," you later referred to them as the "Sylvian Aqueducts." Make sure the capitalization agrees. This was evident between some of the terms you listed in the introduction and the body of the article. Just go through the article to check for agreement.
The introduction was good in that it provided a concise version of the information that was given below. There were a few things I believe need to be fixed. The first is the sentence beginning with "The sensory organs include..." This sentence can be split up at "They have the ability..." in order to make it flow easir and to avoid it sounding like a run on sentence. The second is the "peripheral system" at the end of the first paragraph. Because the article deals with both the vascular and nervous systems, you should make the distinction on which one it is. Providing a hyperlink may help as well. A third and final point about the introduction is the sentence starting with "CVOs can be classified in two ways..." In this sentence, list the sensory organs first because its respective associated structures are listed first in the following sentence.
The body of the article was well put together and I like how you separated each structure into anatomical location and its repective function. It allowed me to learn about each thing in an efficient manner. As for the order teh information is presented in, I would switch the OVLT with the SFO. You mention that the SFO is similar to the OVLT, but the OVLT has not been anatomically described yet. Make sure that the order you present your information makes sense with was is being said or compared.
In the OVLT section, you need a period between "...characteristic of CVOs" and "The OVLT..." In addition, you should make the distinction on what kind of angiotensin receptor it is. Your article suggests it is an angiotensin II receptor, but the reader may not assume that. In the function section, I would change “These channels with a high calcium permeability, then, are responsible for membrane depolarization and increased action potential discharge” to “These channels are highly permeable to calcium and are responsible for membrane depolarization and increased action potential discharge” and "climate differences" to "different climates." 
The subcommissural section was well put together and I only found a few thing I believe need to be changed. Once again, if you disagree, please let me know. I would combine the first sentence to state "...Sylvian aqueduct and at the midline roof of the..." to make them flow together and get ride of saying "also" in consecutive sentences. To continue the idea of Anatomy vs. Function, I believe you should split the section between the first and second paragraphs. I noticed that the first focused on anatomy while the last two were primarily function. In addition, providing a link to the serotonergic system would be helpful to those who don't know what that is, like myself. Towards the end, you use the acronym "RF." Does this stand for Reissner's Fibers? If so, make sure to state the full name before the acronym. You were very good at doing this in the introduction and it was very helpful.
The only thing I found in the posterior pituitary section was the double period at the end of the second sentence in the first paragraph.
For the median eminence, I was confused on the term "tanycytes." Are these the specialized ependymal cells? If so, instead of saying “The major cell type that makes up the median eminence are specialized ependymal cells,” you should state, “The major cell type that makes up the median eminence are specialized ependymal cells called tanycytes.” Then you would begin the next paragraph with “Tanycytes line the floor of the third ventricle.”
The pineal gland was also well put together. I would like to see a hyperlinks to some more terms, like "pinealocyte sensu stricto," in order to help you explain the anatomy and function of the pineal gland. As for function, I would change “Pineal tumors can affect sexual development, but this relationship has yet to be established conclusively” to "...but the effecting mechanism has not yet been established.” We know that there is a relationship between the two, we just don't know why. Lastly, for "other pineal substances," try not making inferences and focus on the facts. Unless there is an article that says the “research hasn’t been thoroughly conducted in this area,” don’t say it. It may be better to get rid of this sentence because you are putting in your own opinion into the article.
Overall I thought this was a very good article and I especially liked the amount of articles that were cited. It implies to me that everything was well researched and that the information is accurate. Please let me know if you disagree with anything I may have suggested.
Ian Kates (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: A couple notes of things you may want to do to bolster this page up a little bit.  The first thing is that a couple of sentences don't really fit, such as the first sentence on the page.  What kind of classification? It is a very vague small sentence that doesn't do much for the page and should be expanded.  For explaining what parts of the brain are cvo's, I would put up a picture just so it's easier to tell what parts of the brain they are.  Easier to understand visually rather than textually.  Secondly, watch out for primary sources.  Things like citation #14 may cause some problems because they are primary scientific articles and can cause bias in a wiki page.  Lastly,  some of the headings are confusing for main sections and which ones are sub topics.  AdamMJenks (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review