Talk:Cerebral organoid

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SLUstudentMC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article review

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1

• Im not sure if the article from the Economist counts as a peer-reviewed journal article

I have added a neuroscience text book as a reference to make a total of 10 articles/text booksKeval tilva (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5. Links: 1

• I think you could link to more pages when talking about the mechanics of creating the organoids

Fixed. I added links to more articles in the creating and organoid section.Keval tilva (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

6. Responsive to comments: 2?

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing:1

• I think in the first sentence of the page "organoid" should be lowercase? If not, should the title be capitalized?

Fixed.

• in "Model Development", "invitro" should be 2 words

Fixed.

• under "Differentiation" I'm not sure what "The origins of the optic cup, hippocampus, ventral parts of the teleencephelon, dorsal cortex etc" should be but this isn't a sentence

Fixed. Thanks for the feedback! Lfstevens (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these. I have also gone over them and double checked.Keval tilva (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

• I like the flowchart you have, but maybe you could put in more images of the cells being grown?

I had to make the flowchart because all the relevant images from articles are copyrighted. I have looked in wikimedia commons but there are no cerebral organoid pictures. I might try to use generic cell culture pictures. Thanks for the feedback.Keval tilva (talk) 15:36, 21

November 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a thumbnail image to the top of the article. It has various neural tissues that stem cells can differentiate into based on the factors present. I think it is a valid image to use in the introduction of cerebral organoids because they are a new and unique type of tissue engineering and the basics of stem cell differentiation can inform organoid development.

Keval tilva (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Total: 16 out of 20 Anna Tadsen (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Reasonably organized and well-written article.
2. Article size: 2
   Just over 15,000 bytes.
3. Readability: 2
   It was a very readable article.
4. Refs: 2
   Mostly peer-reviewed articles and mostly from the past few years.
5. Links: 2
   A fair share of links to other articles, but could do with even more in some places.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
   Very responsive and corrected mistakes where described.
7. Formatting: 2
   Appears to be well-formatted with concise divisions and subdivisions.
8. Writing: 1
   As has been said, is well-written, but the image you constructed should contain a caption, even if it describes the heading of the section it's in. Also, I feel that your "Potential Applications" section should not be a header. It seems out of place and makes me think that there is an actual section that could be lacking. These applications, should have some outside reference or article link of some type because a layperson could be lost. Otherwise, you would need to elaborate on these.

Thanks for the feedback! I will try to put a sentence or two explaining the applications. I will also try to link them.66.87.19.219 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
   Username is real name.
2. Outstanding?: 2
   Is reasonably referenced and well-written. Original work is featured in a figure. Other than the "Potential Applications" section, it was an "outstanding" article.

Total: 19 out of 20 --Ksuraj3 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Congratulations, Keval! Great job. Lfstevens (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Detailed facts and up-to-date content.
2. Article size: 2
   About 16, 416 bytes.
3. Readability: 2
   It was quite readable and there were lots of links.
4. Refs: 2
   Had enough recent sources and has atleast 10 articles.
5. Links: 2
   Incorporated links appropriately wherever needed in order for lay person to understand
6. Responsive to comments: 2
   Has responded to all the peer reviews.
7. Formatting: 2
   Formatted well but I would place the flow chart on the right or the left side of the content

• Do you think the flow chart should remain the same size? Right now it is the full image that comes after the explanation of how organoids are made. Are you suggesting making it a thumbnail and putting it to the right or left side? I have placed it after this section as a full size to be a centerpiece of the article since the creation of cerebral organoids is the newest/most relevant breakthrough Keval tilva (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, I guess personally I would wrap text around thumbnail but I understand that since the diagram represents your entire topic it can be effective as a full-size picture. Angela Mariam Thomas (talk) 1:38, 27 November 2013‎ (UTC)

1. Writing: 2
   Well-written and Well-organized
2. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
   Username is real name.
3. Outstanding?: 1
   Well-written, but not outstanding.

• What do you think it would take to make my article outstanding? Keval tilva (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• I think you should organize potential applications differently. When I take a first look at it, it seems like the content is everywhere. I guess a better way to do it is to number the main points and bullet the subpoints. You could also add some pictures in the disease section or show the brain regions associated. Angela Mariam Thomas (talk) 1:38, 27 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Total: 19 out of 20 --Angela Mariam Thomas (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)

ISS

• Johnson, Michael (September 24, 2019). "Growing a Smarter Model for Brain Research in Space". nasa.org. NASA. Retrieved October 2, 2019. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments & suggestions

General comments/suggestions:

• Can you add more links to other articles?
• Avoid referring to a ″recent study.″ If this article is not updated, then it won't be recent anymore. I removed the "pending study" in the autism section. These sentences were possibly added by one of the authors of the study and were not in accordance with WP guidelines.
• overall organization - consider moving culturing methods, components, assays, and maybe limitations to the top with applications and disease in the middle and Ethics back to the end.
• ″components″ does not seem like the best header for this section, but I agree that it's former header - testing - was not great either. Maybe ″Model system″ or ″Validity as a model system?″
• The new assays section seems to have some overlap with components. Let's discuss...

Several things in the lede popped out to me:

• in vitro and in vivo should be in italics.
• Cerebral organoids can be created from species other than humans.
• Failed verification in last sentence. Can you find a reference that supports this statement? I would think that any paper describing the protocol for creating cerebral organoids would suffice.
• Several other improvements could be made in the lede. Let's discuss...

Biolprof (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph of Ethics feels AI-generated and doesn't add anything

> In light of the rapid advancements in cerebral organoid research, it is imperative that we approach this field with great care and consideration. Upholding ethical principles and adhering to standards is crucial, and we must not disregard concerns surrounding the potential for consciousness, use of human-derived cells, and implications for personalized medicine. A comprehensive and meticulous evaluation is necessary to ensure transparent, accountable, and responsible research practices.

Directly goes against WP:PRONOUNS.

This edit also seems AI-generated? Lots of statements without citations and irrelevant information. Suggest deleting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cerebral_organoid&diff=prev&oldid=1198354640

Looks like all of the user's edits on other pages has been reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Layladirie

ForestAlpaca (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely all AI-generated. Over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glutamate_(neurotransmitter), the same user wrote this:

> HI ,my name is layladirie im student from uskudar university ,i edit this aeticle(glutamte neurotransmitter)as assigment for my course (Recent Developments in biotechnology MLC501/1.i already completed wikipedia training modules to proficient in wikipedia editing .i would appreciate any suport

Given the lack of basic English skills on display in that comment, it is blatantly obvious that the prose added to the article was not truly written by this person - and yes, some of it is also vacuous fluff. Maybe the bits in the ‎Tissue morphogenesis section are better (I don't have the expertise to judge) but it's all uncited. Let's purge all this user's additions for now; if a subject matter expert thinks there was something of value in the ‎Tissue morphogenesis section, they can restore it (with citations!) later. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)