Talk:Mirror neuron/GA1

GA Review

Here's a partial review to start with:

Image:Mirror neuron.jpg lacks a source and a reason for why it's in the public domain. This must be fixed before promotion. (Also, the black arrow is almost invisible, how about modifying the image and uploading a new one with a white arrow after the copyright thing is fixed?)
The article has a lot of jargon, e.g. "conspecific" in the lead. It's good that this is linked, but words unfamiliar to a lay reader should be avoided wherever possible. How about "of the same species"? Same with unfamiliar concepts like fMRI. The article needs to be combed for jargon and either explain or replace as many instances as possible.
"no single neurons can be responsible for the phenomenon" single neurons? Single type of neuron? Can this be explained?
The lead should serve as a stand-alone summary of the article (see WP:LEAD), so it should probably contain info from each of the sections. I got rid of the "introduction" section, so parts of the lead should probably be merged into sections of the article, as the lead is now too long.
"evidence from fMRI, TMS and EEG and behavioral strongly suggest" unclear.
- Ah, I didn't realize that this was a grammar error. Thanks for catching it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph under "Discovery" doensn't have to do with the discovery.
Each of the references should be expanded to have author, title, journal, volume, issue, page, and URL if available. You can use the {{cite journal}} template, and check out this awesome tool which will make it a snap.
Primary sources are not the best for wikipedia; better are review articles or textbooks that cite the primary sources. This article relies heavily on primary sources. At least some of them should be replaced.
The article uses brain anatomy terms without explaining them (e.g. "mirror neurons are found in the inferior frontal gyrus (region F5) and the inferior parietal lobule."). How about an image illustrating the areas in question?
Words like "Recent" should be avoided per WP:DATED.
Short, one-sentence paragraphs should be avoided.
Is it eye-tracking or eye tracking?
Numbers and units should be separated with a non-breaking space (&nbsp;) so the units don't show up by themselves on the next line. See WP:NBSP.

I'm going to stop here for now and put the article on hold for a week. I'll continue reviewing once these issues are addressed. If they don't get addressed in time, the article can be resubmitted to GAN at another time. delldot talk 11:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn because of the image copyright problem noted above. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]