|WikiProject Anatomy||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 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?
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Thank you. We thought the function section was necessary to be that long because of all the functions the pia mater is actually involved in. As for the pathology section, these diseases involved with the pia mater are not well researched. These were the two main diseases associated with the pia mater, so unfortunately we could not find more to add to this section. Thank you for your suggestions. Finnry (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thanks. Adding those extra links now, though unfortunately many of them are stubs. I personally don't think adding a link to glucose would be necessary because it isn't completely imperative to the article and I feel is assumed to be known knowledge, but I'm not sure. If anyone else has an opinion on that let us know. Unfortunately pia does not have a giant function in sensory, so that section will either have to remain short or be taken out since it isn't a critical characteristic of the pia. Pathologies and current research will definitely be expanded. Thanks so much, and feel free to check up again! Sylwiahandz (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thanks. Our developmental section is the one titled evolution. There is not much information about this topic, so unfortunately that is all we could come up with. The same goes for history/discovery. Since it is such an under researched topic, there is not a lot of information in this area. We did however find your comment about Spinal and Cranial to be a good idea and this was changed. Thanks again for your contribution.Finnry (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thanks pklauck1. Someone else mentioned lengthening the introduction so that will definitely happen. And you are right about the ambiguities you brought up and the comment regarding the headings. Sylwiahandz (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
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) These responses were helpful and those grammatical errors were changed. It was meant to say trabeculae also. Canesir (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Great Wiki guys. This article was extremely informative and you definitely did your homework on Pia Mater. I feel that the introduction could use a bit more substance. Although it definitely provides a good overview of Pia Mater and it is very well-written, I think you should touch on a few of the subtopics that you go into later in the article. This would allow the reader to have a better understanding of what he/she is about to be delving into as well as provide more substance at the opening of the Wikipedia article. I think of the opening as a complete summary of the entire article rather than just a brief paragraph discussing what Pia Mater actually is. Overall is was a great article. mastroin (talk) 1:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well done guys. Excellent article with plenty of information. As said above, I think that the intro could have more in it. As well, I don't know how important the pronunciation is as far as the article goes. If you do plan to keep it, I would change the sentence structure around a little bit. The pictures were great and definitely an important addition. I think that the sentence starting with "When you bump your head on the wall" could probably be changed up. I'd try to drop any use of the word "you" in an academic article. There are also some sentences that have weird wording, so just make sure to go back through and edit any awkward sentences (Example: "It is absent only at the foramen of Majendie and the foramina of Luschka, which are natural openings between the ventricles." could be changed to "It is only absent at natural openings between the ventricles, the foramen of Majendie and the foramina of Luschka."). As said before, make some more links. Other than that, great article, keep up the good work. Swjohnson8 (talk) 4:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions about changing some wording of sentences, those corrections have been made. Canesir (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
End of Boston College BI481 Project
Hi guys, nice job with the topic, it's much better than when you started. A few points:
- In the Evolution section you use another encyclopedia as a reference. As stated here, tertiary sources such as encyclopedias shouldn't be used for detailed discussion like this.
- In the Pathology section, meningismus should be hyperlinked to its article page.
- In the Structure section, Extracellular should not be capitalized.
In the summary and under the section Structure, it is stated that the pia mater is impermeable to fluid. In the section Permeability, the opposite is written, namely that [d]ue to the ependyma and pia mater’s high permeability, nearly anything entering the CSF is able to enter the brain interstitial fluid. Which one is true? Almutei (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Under function-permeability, it says the following. "The contrast in permeability between the BBB and pia mater mentioned before is also useful in the application of medicine. Drugs that enter the blood stream can not penetrate and function in the brain, but instead must be administered into the cerebrospinal fluid."
This is somewhat misleading, is it not? It should be readily apparent that a large number of medications which exert direct effects in the CNS are commonly used via a variety of routes which enter across the pia mater and BBB from circulation. Not to mention the majority of drugs administered into the C.S.F. are intended for local effect on the spinal cord and not the brain per se.
Some authorities refer to brain matter as being gray, others such as the Famous Boston writer D.F.Wallace say it is pink "cloudy pia-mater pink" actually, so what color is it? QuentinUK (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)