Talk:Molecular neuroscience

Comment

i'm no expert, but this page needs to include some content about proteins, transmitters, axon guidance etc.--sluox 08/08/06

Merge with cellular neuroscience

As it stands, I don't think it is necessary to have one article on molecular neuroscience and one article on cellular neuroscience. There is a great deal of overlap between the two articles and it is very difficult to describe one without the other. I proposed that this article be merged with cellular neuroscience to form a new article called Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience. Any thoughts? mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (albeit not a strong oppose to having the combined page). Just considering how large each of these fields have become, there should be plenty of material to justify separate pages, even if there ends up being some overlap. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Understand. But as an encyclopedia article, the amount of detail in here is not likely to rise to the level of a graduate course in molecular or cellular neuroscience. In fact most places (universities with neuroscience programs) combine the two. Even in the Journal of Neuroscience, the section is classified as "cellular/molecular." Currently, the amount of content in either article is small. Plus, I doubt there is much traffic to either article. In the far future, if the contents of both fields become so large and widely known that separate articles are needed, then we can always split them again into two separate articles. Until then, I think readers, particularly those who are naive to the field, would be better served by just one merged article that provides the main gist of molecular and cellular neuroscience. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. The division between the subject materials is very well-defined, and while a course reviewing fundamental neuroscience would describe them within the cell as parts of the same mechanism, a chapter in a textbook or review article would make the distinction. Research would very clearly be pinpointing a process to be studied as either a cell-dynamic process or chemistry. JoN has them under the same category, but PhysRev D does both particle physics and cosmology, and PhysRev E does both biophysics and chaos, all very different but mathematically-related fields. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cellular neuroscience and molecular neuroscience describe different levels and should not be merged. If we follow the proposal to the extreme one should merge anatomy with histology (organs vs. tissues), histology with cell biology (tissue vs. cell), and cell biology with biochemistry (cells vs. molecules). Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I know I'm weighing in a bit late, but I have offered a lot of contributions to this page and I share sentiments with Tryptofish. I do however feel, considering the heavy overlap of material, that the two articles should reference one another to some degree. -Ksuraj3 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Student peer reviews

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Many sources.
2. Article size: 1
   Over 25,000 bytes.
3. Readability: 2
   Very easy to read.
4. Refs: 2
   Many references, several of which are recent.
5. Links:2
   Thoroughly linked article.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
   No recent comments to respond to.
7. Formatting: 2
   Well laid out.
8. Writing: 2
   Neutral with no typos.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
   Used GT username which contains the last name but did not have full first and last name on talk page.
   • Corrected and full name on talk and user page. -Ksuraj3 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Outstanding?: 2
    Very well written and goes into great detail on each topic.

Total: 18 out of 20 Bsridhar6 (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Information is factual and recent.
2. Article size: 1
   Article is over the allotted amount of bytes (25,000).
3. Readability: 2
   Strong writing that would most likely be understood by most readers.
4. Refs: 2
   Many sources and most seem to be relatively recent.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 1
   Did not participate in discussions regarding whether this article was too similar to another.
7. Formatting: 2
   Outstanding organization and use of sub-headings. Reasonable ordering of topics.
8. Writing: 1
   Writing sounds scientific and there are few grammar errors.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
   Created username that resembles real name, but does not have actual name on talk page.
   • Corrected and full name on talk and user page. -Ksuraj3 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Outstanding?: 2
    Great detail, easily understandable and even uses pictures to illustrate complicated topics.

Total: 17 out of 20
Ryandrsmith (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Information is factual and recent.
2. Article size: 1
   over 25Kb
   • I understand the size of the article is large, but the potential breadth of material is sure to cause for the article to be even larger than it is right now. For example there is a still a section on the molecular basis of synaptic plasticity that could be written.
3. Readability: 2
   Fluidity in reading it, nice. -Ksuraj3 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 1
   Did not respond to the discussion yet
   • I have actually talked directly with another Wikipedian (Tryptofish) and made several changes after talking with him on his talk page. I made no contributions to the concept of merging with the "Cellular Neuroscience" article because I agreed with all of the sentiments. I couldn't talk about article size (except for with the professor of this course) because it is almost unreasonable to pose such limitations on an article with the potential for such breadth this one. -Ksuraj3 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Formatting: 2
   
8. Writing: 2
   Mostly free from technical errors. Keeps neutrality.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
   GT name used, not the real one
10. Outstanding?: 2
    Brilliant article, very comprehensive and deep.

Total: 17 out of 20
JinYongSim (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Comment from a (non-student) editor

I appreciate that the page has been significantly improved over its former state, and that the student editor made further improvements after discussion with me on my user talk page. I've commented to that effect at WP:Education noticeboard, here: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Outstanding! danielkueh (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)