Talk:Metaplasticity

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment

This is a nice article in several respects. I am assessing it as C class, though, because the writing style is a bit too complex for Wikipedia's target audience, and because it relies too heavily on primary sources. (A Wikipedia article, unlike an article in a scientific journal, should reference mainly secondary sources such as review papers or textbooks.) Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptic tagging

This section is written as if synaptic tagging were discovered by Young et al. It would be more appropriate to cite Frey and Morris (1997) Synaptic tagging and long-term potentiation. - Or perhaps delete the whole section, since it is not directly relevant to metaplasticity. 129.115.120.236 (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an upper 2nd class university essay. Too much waffle, not enough structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpbrown (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic exposition is useful and ok, but it needs a lot of work and refinement, is sometimes rather misleading or inaccurate, and I'm inclined to agree with the immediately preceding comment. Any one using this article as a basis for an essay or report should use extreme caution. On the other hand, it is an important and difficult topic, and the article is a good start.Paulhummerman (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Metaplasticity

I don't think digital metaplasticity really belongs here. Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article, but seeing how little information there is on the topic, maybe it should be removed completely. Allethrin (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks awkward the way it currently appears. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(Digital)Metaplasticity" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect (Digital)Metaplasticity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#(Digital)Metaplasticity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]