- The following is an archived discussion of Brain Activity Map Project's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC).
Brain Activity Map Project
Created by Tryptofish (talk). Self nominated at 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
- I will review this. Chris857 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The only significant items from the duplication detector are on the long organization names
- Article is new, ~1600 characters
- TIME and NYT are reliable sources
- I'm not really seeing the content of the first sentence of the third paragraph in either source given. NYT does mention DNA, but the other bits specifically. Can you clarify?
- Chris857 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughtful review. My reading of the NYT source is that they were attributing what I summarized as "store and report the sensed activity" to the synthetic DNA. The source specifically says "creating fleets of molecule-size machines to noninvasively act as sensors to measure and store brain activity at the cellular level. The proposal envisions using synthetic DNA as a storage mechanism for brain activity." I wonder whether the "molecule-size machines" are more than the sDNA (ie, other molecules as well), but the source does not allow speculation beyond that. In response to your comment, I did change "synthetic DNA molecules" to "molecules including synthetic DNA", which I think parses the source information more exactly. The source directly says that the methods are non-invasive and derived from nanotechnology, and also gives the 100 billion number, so I feel that's well-sourced. Originally, I referred to electrophysiology to describe this method, because it's measuring neuronal electrical activity, but since the source does not use this word (and because traditional electrophysiological electrodes appear not to be involved), I've now deleted it. That leaves as "the other bits", "combining them with methods of neuroimaging and neuroanatomy". Neuroanatomy is just determining where each cell is within the brain, so I think that's self-evident. Neuroimaging is the only conceivable way to "see" what those "molecule-size machines" are doing, without using invasive methods, so I don't think that it's SYNTH, but if you disagree with me, I can delete or change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I looked and found the journal article which proposed this project. It could be good for historical (not newsy) material and more technical details.
- Otherwise, I think this passes for dyk. (QPQ satisfied) Chris857 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll add that cite now, and incorporate more from it into the text tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)