Talk:Neuromorphology

message: Hey guys, awesome job so far! Your writing is very clear, not too wordy which is really important. I think you're almost done to be honest, but here are a few suggestions I have for you before the due date:
*In the introduction, I don't know how necessary it is to explain the distinction between morphology and morphogenesis.
*You don't include any references under the "Subfields" heading. I know that some of the information may be general knowledge, but you should probably cite some of the information from "General morphology"
*Are there any pictures you could incorporate? I know that sometimes copyright issues arise, but I bet you guys can find the basic morphology of the neuron/brain/nervous system on Wikimedia Commons. This would help to finish off your article
*Just a final comment: I'm slightly confused whether neuromorphlogy refers to the morphology of a neuron (you refer to neuron morphology in the history section) or the overall morphology of the nervous system as a whole and how its relative organization affects function. Or maybe it's both? I think this is something you could address in the intro.
Good luck and great work so far! 136.167.123.243 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-peer review

message: Hey guys, great article - really interesting topic! The one thing I noticed that threw me off a little was that in your definition of neuromorphology you say that it is the study of the nervous system form shape and structure, as well as looking at it as an organ system. The majority of your article only talks about neurons and the cellular aspect of neuromorphology. Maybe it would help if you added a section focusing on the nervous system as an organ and discussing the nervous system on a more macroscopic level. Otherwise everything looks great! Good luck.Goverman (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Hi-
My name is Alexandra and I'm in Dr. Burdo's class too. Here are my peer review comments. They are just suggestions, do what you feel is necessary!
Overall, your article is really good. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot from it. Here are my few suggestions.
First: I think it would really benefit your article if you expanded the Influence on Neuron Function. Structure correlating to function seems like a recurring theme in biology. If you could find any more information about that, it would really set the stage for the rest of your paper. For instance, you can think about incorporating a study such as the one I found here: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/50061
Under Theoretical Neuromorphology: it would help if you expanded this section. I understand that there is a main article for this, but if you can incorporate just a few more details such as the importance of this sect of neuromorphology, I think that would help tie it into your article.
For Design-based Stereology: can you expand this section? I think you should talk about some specific techniques. Once again, maybe you can discuss the importance of this technique.
I really like your section about Clinical Applications. It would benefit from supporting evidence such as a citation of a specific study. I found the optic nerve study online and it appears that some of that information will help you expand upon that.
Finally, under Current and Future Research perhaps once again, mention the importance of neuromorphology. Is it really necessary? Are there any debates about it/ethical issues surrounding it, etc?
Overall, I think your article is awesome! Sorry for being critical, but unfortunately it is a requirement of the assignment. Please feel free to comment on our article, Rostral Migratory Stream. Your comments are welcomed! Thanks so much!
Pretkennedy (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Hi guys, your article was really interesting! I only have a couple of small suggestions. If there is a Wikipedia page for corpuscles, I would link to it because I'm sure not too many people know what it means. In the history section, there doesn't need to be a comma after 1865. In the general morphology section, I think "characterizes" should be "characterized." Also, sometimes when talking about design-based stereology there is a hyphen, but sometimes there is not. The words stereology and stereography are both used in reference to the technique, but I'm not sure if you only meant to incorporate one of them. Generally speaking, I would try to elaborate on some of the shorter paragraphs and maybe get a couple more reference. Sorry if these suggestions were too picky! Otherwise, the article looks great! Cassianp (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Excellent work so far guys, this was a very well written article.  I thought you did a great job in the introduction in explaining what exactly neuromorphology is and the differences between morphology and morphogenesis.  I also thought the layout/structure of the article allowed it to flow nicely.  You also included many internal links to other Wikipedia pages which I thought was very helpful in trying to gain more information about certain things.  A couple of suggestions I have for you:  More information regarding the computational neuromorphololgy would make the article better in my opinion.  Since this is part of the current and future research of neuromorphology, I believe it is one of the more important sections in the article, so some more information about it would improve the article.  Also, maybe you could include a picture or two just to give the reader another way to visualize the information in your article.  Other than that, very well done and good luck with the rest of the project. Solomojk (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Greetings guys. Your article was interesting but I think you could expand on some points to make it even better. To open up your article, I think a broader discussion of the history of morphology of nerve cells would help the readers know more about the subject. A deeper look at the relationship between the morphology and function of neurons would be useful. This would also help us understand how new imaging technologies actually work. Ramon and Cajal are two prominent neuroscientists, and I think more information about neuronal spacing and dendritic morphology would greatly enhance the content of your writing. Here are some more questions I had:
1) What are some of the factors that affect neural shape and synaptogenesis?
2) Talk more about theoretical morphology: I know you provided a hyperlink, but maybe introduce the topic a little more to the reader. 
3) Discuss the Grey level index more and its uses with algorithms. 
4) Neuromorphology and the impact it has on resolving neurological and neurodegenerative disorders. 
Robocop8908 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: I really enjoyed this article. You did a great job making it readable and understandable. You added the perfect amount of of hyperlinks and it seemed pretty professional. I like how you broke up the article into history, research methods, clinical applications, and future research. These are solid topics to build on and expand as the article progresses. Also the greek in the beginning was a nice touch.THere are some things I would suggest to change though. Some of your sub points, like current and future research could use some more information. I think adding some pictures would also help spice up the article. Just one or two, maybe of the microscoping techniques you discussed. Also the 'm' in cortical mapping should be capitalized to be consistent with your other titles. Overall, a great start and should be a great paper.  -deroberm (talk) 011:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Hey guys, overall I thought the article was really interesting and I liked the differentiation between neuromorphology and neuromophogensis at the beginning- I thought this helped set the tone of the article. A few suggestions that I have are to expand the influence on neuron function section. I definitely think this is an important link to make however even just expanding on that one example you gave would add significantly to the article. Furthermore, I don't know if it would be possible but you may want to expand on the design-based sterology section. I really think the only thing you need to do is explain a little bit about how it works and that would be really helpful to the readers. Additionally, I think the computation neuromorphology section is interesting but you could definitely add more. Talk about maybe what this research could be useful for in future if it will help with specific diseases or just general understanding of brain processes, really anything. My last comment would be to add pictures, I understand that it is probably hard to find pictures you can legally use so my suggestion would be to draw them or make them on the computer, I think it would look cool and really add to the article, especially the part where you talk about the types of neurons there are such as unipolar, multipolar, etc. In general I thought it was really interesting I did not know much about the field before reading your article, and I hope my suggestions are useful! ~Elizabeth S (talk) 10:08 15 November 2011 (UTC).
Hi Elizabeth. One of the major obstacles we ran into with this topic is on how broad it is and how little information there is in defining it. There aren't many scientific articles that focus heavily on the neuromorophology of any part of the body, and the few out there don't include any information about the general procedures used in the experiment because the articles spend more time translating the data into conclusions. We are trying to spend more time presenting the techniques used in researching the neuromorphology of a certain part of the body rather than presenting the results of the scientific papers we have researched, but there's just very little information out there. We really want to add more to the article but we are essentially staring at a brick wall right now. However, we will continue to research more and if any information pops up, we will definitely add it to the article. Thank you for your feedback! SKChan903 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Overall I think you did a great job on expanding the page. A few sections (influence on neuron function, theoretical morphology and design-based stereology) could be expanded even further. Even if you just talked about one specific example that you read about during your research, I think it would add a little more depth to the article.
In addition, I think adding a few pictures or figures would be a good idea. It is definitely difficult to find pictures that relate to your topic. Maybe a table explaining some of the different techniques you talked about in brief, so that readers could understand all of the techniques at a glance. Just an idea! It would break up the reading and create a more comprehensive article. I think you did a great job linking your article with other relevant articles on Wikipedia! I also really liked the organization of the article.
I did not notice any spelling or grammar mistakes, so I think you did a great job proofreading the article before you posted it online! Overall I really liked reading the article, I learned a lot about a subject that I had never heard of before. Great work- good luck with the rest of the project. Allison (talk) 12:38 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Allison. We are aware that a few of the sections could be expanded further but we've hit a wall with the topics because there is very limited information about them. Neuromorophology is a very broad topic and it is difficult to define it exactly because no scientific articles want to take the time to explain it and would much rather present the findings of the experiment for which the article was written. However, we will be on the lookout for more information and will add it as soon as it becomes available from a credible source. In addition, we think that adding a table just briefly explaining the different techniques is unnecessary because the paragraphs are already short to begin with and would just end up making our article sound repetitive if we did add it. We are working on adding images currently so please look out for any updates we have. Thank you for your feedback! SKChan903 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Overall this was a very interesting and well done article. I think it provided a lot of good information. I also liked the amount of hyperlinks that you had, enough that I could further my research if I wanted but not so much that it is obnoxious. There are a few things that I would suggest you take a look at. First, the influence on neuron function section seems like more needs to be added to it. I would talk about how that particular shape allows it to function the way it does and why. Also in the history section just by reading the article alone I didn't understand all the techniques you were referring to. For example, when you say things like microdisection, maybe write just one sentence about what it is so I don't have to click the link to understand. Lastly I think pictures will make your article much easier to understand. Because of the type of article you have you could easily add a picture of like a unipolar, a bipolar, and multiploar neurons etc. This would help the reader visualize what you are referring to in the article. These are just a few suggestions, but I think the article was very well done and I found no grammar or spelling errors. Good job! Brian (talk) 02:38 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Brian. We were trying to avoid adding unnecessary amounts of information to the paragraphs, especially if it was possible to hyperlink a term to its Wikipedia page. It makes things easier on our part and promotes awareness of other articles that are related to this topic. We will add more our history page, however, since it is a bit short, but any information about the history of neuromorphology is limited, especially since we limited it to credible sources. We are also in the process of searching images and adding them to our article so please be on the lookout for them. Thank you for commenting on our page! SKChan903 (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: This is a very interesting article and you guys did a great job writing it. There are many internal links, which is great. I do believe that a few sections would be expanded further, such as neuron function, development, clinical applications, and research. Overall I think your sections are very succinct and cover the necessary information, thus making it easy to read and understand. I think your article would benefit greatly from images of neurons, as others have pointed out. I didn't notice any spelling or grammatical errors so good job proof-reading and editing! Great work. patelbq (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Under 'Influence on Neuron Function', what is this relationship you mention between neuron shape and function? I think it will be helpful to fully specify the relationship. Also, under 'Development' How does each factor, such as ionic wave affect morphology? I think it also be interesting to include how neuromorphology will affect current research. What are the benefits? What are the cons? Why hasn't the study of neuromorphology been full implemented in all research concerning neurological disorders? Then, under 'Clinical Applications', why is it significant in underlying neurological disorders? These are some points I think you could fix. I also did get the impression that a lot of other subtopics were a little too general. However, I did like your introduction. It explained well and was concise. Interesting topic and good explanation of the subject. I also liked how you differentiated between morphology and morphogenesis in the start. Stephanie Lee (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: You have written a very interesting and expansive article which touches on many aspects of neuromorphology. While everything that you have up so far is great, I think you could benefit from expanding. In the Influence on Neuron Functioning section, I feel there is quite a bit of information that could be explored regarding the relationship between the shape and function of the neuron. For example, you could discuss axon length and diameter in relation to the transmission of neuronal signals. Also, the study with the cat retinal ganglion cells could be further explained and the outcomes could be noted. Similarly, in the Development section, you could expand on the effect of gravity but noting specific experimental results as a point of reference. I feel that would make the section more interesting and could help to draw all of your points together. In you Research Methods and Techniques section, I think adding pictures of research techniques you described could beneficially complement your text. Lastly, as an idea if you were looking to expand, a section on abnormal morphology could be interesting. If the information is available, you could connect it to the Clinical Significance section to describe what happens when a neuron is not built the way it is supposed to be. Just an idea though. It definitely would not be a necessity. Great work so far. Aronej (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Hi guys, so like every said, this looks really good and I might end up using some of your sources for my own page! So these are just a few suggestions:
In your last sentence of the first paragraph you might want to say of the brain/nervous system, because its a little ambiguous. If you could, it would be nice to have a little bit information on how the neuron shape is related to function under your Influence on Neuron Function section.
I am not sure and could totally be getting the morphology and morphogenesis difference wrong, but I think the stuff under development is more genesis versus ology. But I could be wrong. This might be true for Gravitation Neuromorphology but ignore this if I am mistaken.
Is the title Subfields supposed to be that?
It would be nice to have some pictures comparing the things you talk about in general morphology.
You could probably find some examples of the outcomes of the techniques and could use a little bit more explanation possibly.
Overall this was really good, I would just try and include a little bit more about how structure acutally relates to function, but you guys did a great job with what little information I was able to find on my own. Good luck!Gallagcw (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Hey guys, great article.  It was very well organized and easy to read through.  The only suggestions I have are to add more information to the clinical applications section.  I think this is an area where if you can find some more information and examles that it could really add to your page.  Also, some pictures in the general morphology section would be very helpful to go along with the information, adding to the readers overall understanding.
MattSchechter  —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neuromorphology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102094212/http://utdallas.edu/%7Etrinidad/p2/index.htm to http://www.utdallas.edu/~trinidad/p2/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)