Talk:Place cell/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
Well it's a very nice article on a significant topic.
I'm a bit concerned about the high number of WP:Primary articles: out of 69 sources, only 7 (at a glance) appear to be definite secondary review papers. Wikipedia more or less defines Reliable Sources as being secondary; while primary sources are not forbidden they are to be used with care, which does rather imply "sparingly", hardly the case here. The serious risk with the use of primary research is that one paper frequently contradicts another, and there are only 2 ways those contradictions can be resolved: by relying on a reliable secondary review that discusses both papers; or by making an editorial judgement (WP:OR) or synthesis (WP:SYNTH) which is not allowed.
- Very good point, I indeed often cited the original sources. I have started adding secondary sources, would it be good practice to remove primary sources where I can find a secondary source? Or shall I keep both in those cases?
- Thanks. It's a matter of judgement. When a secondary source adequately covers several primary sources, they can be dropped (probably best to do so). On the other hand, to write about evolution and Darwin without citing Darwin 1859 would look strange; so the rule may be to cite the key primary papers that created a field, and then to rely on secondary sources as far as possible. At the other end, if something is conjectured based only on one recent primary source, we should mention it, if at all, only with several pairs of thick gloves on ("a recent conjecture ...").
- Many thanks for the new secondary sources.
- Thanks. It's a matter of judgement. When a secondary source adequately covers several primary sources, they can be dropped (probably best to do so). On the other hand, to write about evolution and Darwin without citing Darwin 1859 would look strange; so the rule may be to cite the key primary papers that created a field, and then to rely on secondary sources as far as possible. At the other end, if something is conjectured based only on one recent primary source, we should mention it, if at all, only with several pairs of thick gloves on ("a recent conjecture ...").
The whole of the first paragraph of "Aging" is uncited, as is some of the second paragraph.
- Now cited with a review paper
The last sentence of "Reactivation, replay, and preplay" is uncited.
- Now cited with a review paper
I'm surprised there are no diagrams of place and grid cells showing their interaction.
- I have a found a diagram for this, will work on writing in the relationship between place cells and grid cells and add the diagram at that point.
- Have added diagram, let me know if this is sort of what you had in mind. It doesn't really show the interaction but is a nice overview.
- I'd agree with that. Room for post-GA improvement!
Similarly, "Remapping" is crying out for a diagram (a map?) showing the changes that occur. I visualise this as moving the map so a different 10x10 square gets covered by the hippocampus's magnifying-glass, and that could indeed form the basis of a simple cartoon-diagram, but there are other options. It's a very striking finding that remapping occurs, and since it's basically spatial it really deserves a spatial representation. It's more than possible that the artwork in some paper is CC-by-SA; if not, we can easily redraw something that's out there.
- I'll try to make a nice diagram for this, good point!
- Made remapping diagram
- Many thanks, but please leave striking out my comments to me, I have to decide if the comment has been satisfied, or not.
- Sorry, wasn't sure, won't do it again!
"a model known as the functional differentation model" - why not drop "a model known as". The term (FDM) seems to be linked at least half-wrongly; functional differentiation may be key to the model but is not the whole story, not least because it has nothing to do with biology! At the least, change the link to just the words "functional differentiation", but that leaves the term more or less unexplained: what is the connection between the maths and the structures? Something (a map of the brain?, a diagram?) is missing here.
- Have dropped the phrase you suggested and removed the link (was definitely not right). I added the link by saying the compilation of inputs from downstream areas is a functional derivative of the original inputs, which is what the name of the model refers to. Will think about how I can phrase that better though.
"Metric and contextual inputs are processed together in the entorhinal cortex before reaching the hippocampal place cells." This would seem to be an ideal place for a map of the brain highlighting (in colour, say) the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus.
- Couldn't find a good enough one, but will have more of a search.
- Found quite a good imaging showing the anatomy and colour. Not quite with colour what you suggested, but I think it does illustrate the point quite well.
Grid cell seems misplaced in "See also". I suggest a cited paragraph on grid cells in "Background" indicating the relationship to place cells.
- Will do, really great suggestion!
- Done
"The ability of place cells to incorporate new movement information is called path integration". How does that square with what's written in that article: "Path integration is the method thought to be used by animals for dead reckoning." I can see the two statements might have some connection but that will need some explaining, no?
- Good point, need to have a look at that.
- That sentence was wrong and not what was in the source, have fixed that now.
Well, the article is well up to the required standard by now. I hope you feel that the review has improved the article, and I hope you will take the time to pick one or two articles from the GA nominations list to review yourself. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)