Talk:Pia mater

Medicine Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fast comments

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)[reply]

Thank you. And the reference and notes section was started by whomever originally started the article, it will be removed as soon as we figure out how to cite the things that person had stated by a more respected source Sylwiahandz (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Questions at my talk page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In this case problem was that they had not even signed into wikipedia.--Garrondo (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review/Comments

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)[reply]

Good article, it was very easy to understand and I have a only few suggestions to make it better. First, maybe make a few more links throughout the article. For example, in the first part of the structure section make links to glucose, areolar tissue, foramen of Majendie, foramina of Luschka, mesothelial, and so on. I think it will help the readers to understand more about your article if they maybe don't understand the technical terminology perfectly. In the function section you may want to add a bit more under the "sensory" subheading--right now it looks really short. Maybe add something on the importance of the pia mater's ability to convey signals (or the consequences)? In your evolution section I think if you reword the first sentence it would smooth out the beginning of this section. It may just be a long sentence, so maybe breaking it up would help to clarify the point you're making. I also agree that maybe mentioning the possibility of other pathologies would be a good idea because I doubt there are just the two mentioned in the article-or maybe this could be a part of ongoing research on pia mater? Again nice job, I really like the image you use in the beginning-it helps to explain exactly where the pia mater is located. Tbaril52 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, great job with the pictures, it really adds to the overall article. I would definitely consider adding a developmental section, in which you describe how and where the pia mater (and possibly the other brain layers) arose. Here, you could describe the mechanism by which this occurs and/or include anatomical regions. You might also want to add a section describing the history/discovery of the pia mater, if the information is available. Finally, something minor that you may or may not want to change: in the structure section, your sub sections are labeled "Cranial" and "Spinal"; I would recommend renaming them as "Cranial Pia Mater" and "Spinal Pia Mater". The "Cranial" and "Spinal" titles seem like they're missing something. I hope this helps you guys out. Phil J. (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed your article. It was very easy to read and hit upon many main points and implications of the pia mater. You may want to lengthen the introduction to give the reader a quick overview of what you will introduce later in the article. In the structure section I was confused when you state the pia mater is firmly adhered to the entire surface of the brain, and then in the next paragraph say it is an incomplete membrane. In the Cranial section you talk about function of the pia mater in similar fashion as in the Function section. It may increase clarity if you remove the sentence about function in the Cranial section. Also, you may want to change the Research heading to Research directions, which is the common format for Wikipedia articles. Good work. Pklauck1 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! First off, this was a very interesting, well researched, and detailed article. The pictures are great and add a lot to the understanding of the material. I do have some suggestions. First, I think you guys could write more in the Intro section. A suggestion would be briefly mentioning pia matter pathology in the Intro. Also, I think it would improve your article if there were more links. Some words I saw are conus medullaris, coccyx, filum terminale, and meningisms. It might be good to mention that conus medullaris and filum terminale refer to the end of the spinal cord to make the description more visual. In addition, in the “Spinal” section, “medulla spinalis,” could be linked or explain that it means the spinal cord. This sentence was confusing to me, “It encloses the surface of the medulla spinalis, and is attached to it through a process connecting it to the interior fissure.” Also, in the “Function” section I found some run-on sentences. This sentence needs “to” and a comma, “Due the ependyma and pia mater’s high permeability nearly anything entering the CSF is able to enter the brain interstitial fluid.” In the “Structure” section it says “trabeulae, or fibrous filaments.” Is this meant to say trabeculae? Sorry if this sounds nit picky, I just found a few grammar errors, but the information is very interesting and well presented. Overall, this was a great article and very informative! ethingte (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]