<article_title>Brain</article_title>
<edit_user>Looie496</edit_user>
<edit_time>Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:22:53 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Macroscopic structure */ move a paragraph and add a subheading</edit_comment>
<edit_text><strong>The relationship between [[brain size]], body size and other variables has been studied across a wide range of vertebrate species. Brain size increases with body size but not proportionally. Averaging across all orders of mammals, it follows a [[power law]], with an [[exponent]] of about 0.75.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[#refArmstrong|Armstrong, 1983]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This formula applies to the average brain of mammals but each family departs from it, reflecting their sophistication of behavior.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[#refJerison|Jerison, ''Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence'']]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  For example, primates have brains 5 to 10 times as large as the formula predicts. Predators tend to have larger brains. When the mammalian brain increases in size, not all parts increase at the same rate. The larger the brain of a species, the greater the fraction taken up by the cortex.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Finlay&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[#refFinlay|Finlay et al., 2001]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;

====Vertebrate brain regions====

</strong>Neuroanatomists usually consider the brain to consist of six main regions: the telencephalon (cerebral hemispheres), diencephalon (thalamus and hypothalamus), mesencephalon (midbrain), cerebellum, pons, and medulla oblongata.&lt;ref&gt;Principles of Neural Science, Ch. 17&lt;/ref&gt; Each of these areas in turn has a complex internal structure. Some areas, such as the cortex and cerebellum, consist of layers, folded or convoluted to fit within the available space. Other areas consist of clusters of many small nuclei. If fine distinctions are made on the basis of neural structure, chemistry, and connectivity, thousands of distinguishable areas can be identified within the vertebrate brain.</edit_text>
<turn_user>Looie496<turn_user>
<turn_time>Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:47:22 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Maybe close to FA?</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>I am thinking that this article is getting close to a level that might justify an FA nom. There are a few possible areas of improvement -- the ones that occur to me are: (1) adding a bit more material about the relationship between brain and mind, including a paragraph in the lead, (2) reducing the "How it is studied" section by moving some material into the Neuroscience article, and (3) filling in the missing zone of the History section. Does anybody else have opinions on this? Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Although I know that an article such as "brain" is really hard to take to FA I still feel that it is quite far from being ready. Most information now in the article is in very good shape, but there is a lot of information still left. Some of them are:The development section talks in a general way about migration of neurons but does not talk at all about how the brain develops: its stages, its parts... It should be important at least to summarize brain development in mammals.
There is no comment on how neurons communicate
I am not sure if the "functions section" has complete sense: The neurotransmitter system is not properly a system but a general property of the brain. Maybe it could be moved to a specific section on neuronal transmission which includes basic properties of synapses and neurotransmitters.
Brain energy consumption is neither a function: I do not know where it could fit, but not really here
The superior cognitive functions such as the executive system or language are not mentioned in the functions section. Maybe an specific subsection could be created for them. Even if they (or mostly) only appear in humans their importance deserves mention.
The arousal system should talk about more than sleep-awake cycle. No mention is done about attention.
I agree that how it is studied should be summarized.
I hope that at some point this great article becomes a FA, but I believe its time has not come yet.--Garrondo (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Thanks! It has been extraordinarily difficult all through this to get feedback based on content as opposed to form, and that's very helpful. I am inclined to think that the superior cognitive functions should stay in human brain for reasons of space if nothing else, but the other points make a lot of sense and seem addressable. The general concept behind that "Functions" section was that it would correspond to "Physiology" -- that word seems a bit jargony, but I wonder if it should be used anyway. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)I would say phisiology is a better title. Maybe a solution is to write an introductory line to the section with a link to phisiology. Although I do not collaborate in the writing of the article I follow its development quite closely. If at some point you feel that you need a second opinion again you can count on me. Regards.--Garrondo (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) the Brain-mind problem is not addressed sufficiently and the embodied mind is not discussed in any length. font-size: smaller;autosigned—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.87.240 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I am thinking that this article is getting close to a level that might justify an FA nom. There are a few possible areas of improvement -- the ones that occur to me are: (1) adding a bit more material about the relationship between brain and mind, including a paragraph in the lead, (2) reducing the "How it is studied" section by moving some material into the Neuroscience article, and (3) filling in the missing zone of the History section. Does anybody else have opinions on this? </turn_text>