Talk:TBR1

Class peer review

Non-peer review

Hey guys, this is a really great article. From what I can tell, you have followed the Wikipedia format for proteins very well and your writing is clear and concise while remaining packed with all of the important information. Well done-I can tell that you are closing in on the final product. The only suggestion I have for you at this point is to possibly change the heading "Other species" to "Non-human orthologs," since it is more descriptive. Other than that, awesome job. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Good luck! Stempera (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to look at our article Abby. We really appreciate it and your heading suggestion is a great improvement. We implemented it in our page. JaimeeDavis (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Revew 1

This article is packed with facts on the genetical role TBR1 indicating thorough research on the topic. As far as small picture goes I think the article is complete. I do feel, however, that more of the big picture needs to be included such as why is this gene important? What phenotypes result from improper expression? To this extent the current research section appears to be lacking. I think elaboration in this section would help answer the big question of why TBR1 is important. On the more mechanics side of things I'd recommend including more hyperlinks for certain terms and giving a brief definition to some terms. For example, while the term transcription factor is hyperlinked I think a few words explaining what a transcription factor is would help the reader gather more from the article. Another stylistic thing to consider would be to do away with some headings and just combining the sections with only one or two sentences. As it is now the headings act more as a distraction. On a last note I'd suggest the initial paragraph be elaborated on. It should give a concise over view of TBR1 allowing the reader to understand the basics of TBR1 without reading the entire article. Anyway, overall I find the article to be very fact driven and accurate. Hope my comments help. Wesmather (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• We have expanded our introduction and combined some of the small sections into larger ones with more general headings. We have also added substantially more hyperlinks and a clinical significance section which contains the current research on tbr1. We have also tried to make the technical sections more accessible to a broad audience base by giving brief description of some of the technical terms. Thanks for your comments! They really helped! Tas45 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 2

Hey Guys! Your article is pretty comprehensive and talks about how involved the genetic role of TBR1 can be. One of the things that I would suggest is to add some pictures of TBR1 staining to your article. Also, I'm not really clear on the location of "pre-plate" and "VI neurons" so if you added a picture of TBR1 staining it could clear up some confusion there. Your "uses in research" section, although it explains how TBR1 has been used to study neurodevelopment, appears to be a little small. Maybe look up current research on TBR1 and its effects on neurogenesis/neurodevelopment. Or look up how knocking out TBR1 affects the developing structure of the cortical plate. I agree with the idea that the headings can be consolidated; however, I think all of the information in all of the sections is important to understanding the genetic importance of TBR1. I think the article does a good job explaining what TBR1 does. Good work guys, I hope these suggestions are useful. Tilearci (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• We realize that pictures would be helpful for enhancing our article but we were unable to find any tbr1 stains or general cortex anatomy pictures on Wikipedia Commons. We have added a section to the "Tissue and cellular distribution" section that hopefully will clear up any confusion about the layers of the developing cerebral cortex. We have added a "Clinical significance" section which now contains tbr1's uses in research as well as the big picture aspects of tbr1. We also consolidated some of our headings to make our article reflect Wikipedia format. Thanks for the helpful comments Tas45 (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 3

Good job so far, looks like your project is coming along nicely. I liked how you included the function of the protein in other species such as mice and lancelets. I also liked how you included all of the proteins that TBR1 regulates. I have a few suggestions for you though: The use of a couple more pictures would be nice to show the reader what the protein looks like and also adds variety to the article. I think the introduction could be a little longer as well. Instead of just saying some other names of the protein it would be helpful to include its function and other aspects about it such as its discovery. This would set up the article much better I believe and the reader would have a general understanding of TBR1 before they got into the greater details of the article. Finally, more information regarding the use of TBR1 in research would be nice to give the reader a better understanding of TBR1 in a practical sense. Solomojk (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Solomojk

• We have take your comments into consideration and expanded our introduction and added a "Clinical significance" section which gives a more practical sense of tbr1's importance and relevance (i.e. its relationship to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease). This section also contains the current research for tbr1. Unfortunately, we have not been able to find any pictures that really relate to tbr1 on Wikipedia Commons so we haven't been able to add them. Thanks for the help! Tas45 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• We just realized we had permission to use pictures of the protein. Thank you for the suggestion, I think it really does contribute to the article. Grant.vandervoort (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 4

Nice start guys! I like the structure of the content--by breaking it up into headings and sub-headings it makes it much easier to understand and follow. I think the strength of the article right now is the "Gene regulation" section. By separating each protein target of the TBR1 transcription factor, the reader can understand the protein's different functions. Your citations also look thorough.

I also had few suggestions. First, I would reword the first sentence so you use your term “TBR1” at the beginning of the sentence. For example, “The TBR1 gene encodes T-box, brain, 1, a protein found in humans." Also, I would put additional information in the introduction so users who do not want to read the entire article can get a basic understanding of the gene. In terms of grammatical mistakes, “is locate” should be “is located” under the “Gene” section. Furthermore, make sure your reference to TBR1 is consistent. You use several different variations including: TBR1, Tbr1, and Tbr-1. In terms of format, you could move the "Discovery" section up to the first section after the introduction. Finally, I would say that you primarily need to expand. Maybe you could detail how the TBR1, EOMES, and TBX21 genes develop the olfactory bulb. On the other hand, you could discuss the modulation of the NMDAR by TBR1. I hope some of this helps, guys! JaFlick (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another Wikipedia editor changed the wording of our introduction to comply with Wikipedia formatting so we just expanded on what he added to our introduction. Thanks for catching the grammar mistake we missed. We are in the process of making our references to tbr1 consistent. We have also added a "Clinical significance" section to make tbr1 more relevant and give the reader a basic understanding of tbr1's role. We also have added additional information on the functional role, studies in other species, and gene regulation sections. Thanks for your comments! They were really helpful Tas45 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 5

Great article guys. It is definitely not lacking in information or thoroughness. However, I do have a couple suggestions.

In the introduction, I would definitely add more about its function and significance. The way it is now, it makes it seem like the article is about a random protein that serves some sort of function in the brain. It is kind of hard to discern the reason why this protein is important enough to have its own Wikipedia page unless you read the entire article and really understand all of it.

The discovery section seems a little out of place. It’s kind of stranded in the middle of the article. I think it should be either first or near the end before the use in research section.

The gene regulation section is definitely one of the biggest strengths of your paper. However, it is kind of overwhelming and difficult to get the big picture. I would reorganize the subtitles. I feel like a subtitle should be something general that you can use as a basis to help read what’s underneath the subtitle. Instead of putting each protein as the subtitle, I would put the overall function you are describing, and put the description of the protein within that susbtitle. For example, in the CASK subsection, I would change the section title to “role in long term potentiation.” That’s just my opinion, because seeing a bunch of protein names I’ve never heard of as subtitles made it seem a bit overwhelming.

Overall great article though. Its packed with good information and very detailed. Its just a little dense and overwhelming at times for a Wikipedia article.

• As suggested, we expanded on our introduction to include more of the function and significance of tbr1. We have organized the gene regulation sections into three smaller sections (Genes regulated by tbr1, Co-regulators of tbr1, and Transcription factors that regulate tbr1) to make the proteins and genes discussed less intimidating. Thanks for the suggestions! Tas45 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 6

Nice work so far guys. I think the article is very thorough in terms of specific functions of the protein inside the nucleus. It is clearly well-researched. However, there are some things I'd like to suggest;

First, I agree with most of the other reviewers that the introduction needs to be expanded. I would add a general description of some of the protein's most important functions. At the moment it only tells the reader the protein's names. I also agree that the "Discovery" section should be placed closer to the beginning of the article. Second, the article reads a bit too much like a scientific paper to me at times. Some of the terms used are very technical and not always explained. For example, the "Tissue and cellular distribution" section reads more like the abstract of a scientific paper. I would suggest using less technical language if possible. Also, I would suggest that you link more frequently, especially when it comes to the more vague scientific terms. For example, a linkage to "exons" or "orthologs" would help clarify these terms to readers who may not have much scientific background. If possible, a link to the 2 other members of the TBR1 family would be helpful for readers looking to do broader research on the protein. Finally, I believe the "Lancelets" section should either be expanded, or combined with the "Mice" section. It seems a bit too short and unnecessary at the moment.

Overall, this is definitely a good start. I really like how extensive your section on "Gene Regulation" is. I hope you find my comments useful. --Hortonan (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for taking the time to critique our page. We really appreciate your comments. As suggested we have expanded our introduction. We also changed the placement of the discovery section of the article. We tried to address the difficulty and technicalities of the article and make them easier for the reader to understand. We also made the linkages to exons and orthologs you suggested. We also worked on expanding our lancelet section and added a third section, zebrafish to expand our ideas here. If you have any other suggestions, please let us know JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 7

Good job, the article explains TBR1 well, but is complex for a general reader to understand. I do agree with some some of the other reviews. The introduction section needs to be expanded immensely. See Manual of style in the Leads Section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) for more information to help you there. Many of the subtopics need to be expanded as well to make the article flow better and make it more coherent for a general reader. Additionally, more terms need to be hyperlinked and explained throughout the article. I found myself having to look up what certain proteins were to get a better understanding of what was being discussed. Lastly, I think the current research/use in research section needs to be further developed. Pub med has some great articles on current research. Overall, good start to the article. Keep working. --Lorenzes (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for taking the time to critique our article. We really appreciated your suggestions. As you suggested, we expanded our introduction immensely. It had definitely been lacking length. We have also tried to make the subtopics flow more smoothly and to make the article more coherent for the reader. Finally, we had done very little as far as current research as you had noted and have since greatly expanded this topic. If you have any other suggestions, please let us know. JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 8

You guys have a great start to your article. I like how you broke it down to several subpoints and outlined everything clearly. I also likes the addition of the box on the right that shows the gene orthologs. I though that was a nice touch. I did, however, feel that it was choppy in places, like the definition of the gene. Itsounds like a lot of facts tat don't really flow. Also I would add more pictures. As others have stressed, this is a complex idea you are trying to portray and without some visualization, it is very hard to understand what is happening.TAking that into account, I do think you all did a pretty good job getting the point out of what you were trying to say. Overall its a pretty decent. With a little work it will be a great article. -deroberm (talk) 011:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to review our article. We really appreciate it. Your comment regarding the choppy-ness of our article was very helpful and we have tried to address that in our editing. We tried to make it flow more smoothly and read better. Unfortunately regarding visualization, there are no pictures on wikimedia commons specifically addressing TBR1. Hopefully in the future, wikipedia will get the rights to such pictures and they can be added to the page. We agree that pictures would be helpful in the understanding of our topic. If you have any other suggestions, please let us know JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 9

Very good start to the article so far. I think what will be most helpful in understanding the Tbr1 gene is to try to elaborate a bit more on the Gene regulation section. You do a good job of explaining how Tbr1 affects the transcription of CASK and Fezf2, but I think with some of the other genes (Bhlhb5, Sox5, Auts2) you could explain more about how Tbr1's regulation of these genes affects the development of the postmitotic neurons.I do agree with other reviewers in that the article reads a bit choppy. Maybe you could consider moving around sections, like putting Gene regulation right after Function, so that the sections can flow a bit better into one another. Also you could consider expanding the functions section by touching on the other function you listed but did not explicate such as developmental process, brain development, and regulation of neurons in the developing neocortex. Also, just a technicality, but how are these three functions different from one another? Could you maybe just include "regulation of neurons in the developing neocortex" as a brain development function? With expanding the intro and a few more subheadings, the article will be great! Good work. Michjkelley (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to critique our page. We really appreciated all of your comments. Your comments regarding expansion of the other genes (Bhlhb5, Sox5, and Auts2) was especially helpful. We really tried to find as much information on these as we could and to expand them. We also agree that our article was choppy with a lot of short sections, but we have tried to address that and create longer sections where applicable. If you have any other suggestions, we would really appreciate them. JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 10

Good start to the article! The sectioning and subsectioning really helped me follow the article. However, I do agree that the introduction needs to be expanded with a general overview of TBR1's function in the brain, rather than just saying it is a protein in the brain associated with a certain gene. Maybe it would help to move the Gene and Function sections of the article (or some of the information in them) up to the introduction.

Also, in the Function section, you mention the various functions of TBR1 as being "developmental process, brain development, neuronal differentiation, and regulation of neurons in the developing neocortex." However, you only go Neuron Modulation and Modulation of NMDAR after this. You could create subheadings for these functions as well, and explain them in more detail, since you do reference and support them throughout the rest of your article.

Lastly, in the Gene Regulation section you first state that TBR1 positively and negatively regulates gene expression. For ease of reading, you could divide this section into positive and negative regulation, with each of the proteins as subheadings under one of them. martaak (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestions. We really appreciate you taking the time to critique our page. As you suggested we have expanded our introduction. We also added another subsection to the function section to try to expand on that and make it more clear. Finally, your suggestions on gene regulation were extremely helpful. Initially we had thought that it made the most sense to separate subsections by gene, but creating larger sections was a great suggestion. Since they are not all positive and negative regulators, those were not the categories we used, but the categories we choose should also make it easier for readers to understand the functions and relations between genes thanks to your comments. JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Review 11

Nice article guys, lots of detailed information. Like others have said the introduction need to provide a little bit more info to draw the reader into the article. Also my thoughts while reading through the Gene Regulation heading was it could possibly be divided between the positive and negative regulators for ease of reference. Finally in the Current Research you say TBR1 been used to identify sections such as the prethalamic eminence, pallium, and dorsal forebrain. Could you discuss what techniques are used to do this and what advantages this might have to other ways to identify those sections? (Molonyc (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

• Thank you for your suggestions. We especially found your suggestions concerning gene regulation helpful and have edited that section of our wikipedia page to reflect your comments. We have also expanded on our introduction as you suggested and tried to clarify our research. If you have any other suggestions please let us know. We really appreciate you taking the time to critique our page JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

External review

Impressive work! I have the following suggestions to bring it closer to meeting Good Aricle criteria:

• Section headings, per WP:HEAD, use sentence case (only first word is capitalized) instead of title case.
• Many of the sections are very short. These should either be expanded or merged with closely related sections.
• In the gene section, it should be specified that this is the location of the human gene. To expand this section, information on the genomic location of Tbr1 in other species could be mentioned. Also the number exons. The length of the encoded protein would be better placed in a new "protein structure" section.
• In the "Function and mechanisms" section, it is not clear if "other family members" belongs in this section. Is this family defined by sequence/structure similarity or function? If sequence/structure, a new section on "protein structure" should be created. If function, in what way are these family members are related should be stated.
• The gene regulation section should subdivided into transcription factors that regulate the expression of TBR1 (Af9), co-regulatory proteins (CASK and Sox5), and genes regulated by TBR1 (Fezf2, Bhlhb5, Auts2).
• The "current research" section, since it mainly concerns possible involvement of TBR1 in disease should be renamed "clinical significance" or something similar.

Cheers. Boghog (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your help! We really appreciate you taking the time to help us and give us suggestions! We are in the process of making the changes that you have suggested and if you think of or see anything else that you think we should change over the next few days, please let us know! JaimeeDavis (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback 20:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the best class article I have read so far. I encourage you all to continue your work on this. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! We really enjoyed doing this project and are currently in the process of trying to make it Good Article status. Do you have any suggestions for us?

Grant.vandervoort (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the citation form they request for your footnote 5. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:TBR1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lhynard (talk · contribs) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC) ~ I will try to begin reviewing this article tonight. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Status:

 Done Article has passed "quick-fail criteria". Beginning detailed assessment. ~ 00:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done History examined

 Done Checked for disambig lnks

 Done Checked for dead external links ~ 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 1a ~ 02:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 1b ~ 03:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 2a ~ 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 2b ~ 06:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checked criterion 2c

 Done Checked criterion 3

 Done Checked criterion 4

 Done Checked criterion 5 ~ 06:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Checking criterion 6

Pass Checking criterion 7: Article passes ~ 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	• Almost flawless grammar and extremely consistent punctuation—a very rare find indeed on Wikipedia! Good work.  • Under Discovery, TES-56 appears capitalized two different ways and should be consistent throughout.  • Similarly, the capitalization of TBR1 the protein is inconsistent. (The 1st anomoly I noticed was under Functions and mechanisms.)  • Under Functions and mechanisms, I would suggest, "...is a type of protein called a transcription factor, which..." or, "...is a protein, called a transcription factor, that...".  • Could "glutamatergic" be clarified or explained? particularly since there is no article for it (WP:TECHNICAL)  • "Cells that stop dividing (post-mitotic)..."—little explanations like this are very helpful to non-experts.  • ...And in fact the whole Axon guidance subsection is very clear and helpful.  • Ah, I see that "glutamatergic" is defined in Tissue and cellular distribution. Move the explanation earlier to its 1st use. Also, confirm the correct spelling.  • Phrases like, "It was shown that...," and, "It was discovered that...," can be left out, provided you cite—which you do. For example, under Mice, just say, "Tbr-1 is expressed by postmitotic...."  • I expect that the plural of "amphioxus" is "amphioxi". If so, it should be plural to correspond with "lancelets".  • I have moved several links, but I have not checked or moved them all. Try to ensure that links occur at (and usually only at) the 1st occurance of the concept. For example, "telencephalon" was un-linked in the first section, but linked in the very last sentence. Likewise, "GABA" was linked in the last section but introduced far earlier. Those are just examples; I think there were many more such cases. (WP:LINKS)  • I know that the standard rules of nomenclature for proteins named from genes are to capitalize the first letter and lowercase the rest. Genes on the other hand, are in all lowercase and italics. For example, the gene pksA codes for the protein PksA. However, there are countless exceptions. Please check from (non-webpage) sources what the correct format is and be consistent. (Websites, even official ones, often do not bother with proper stylizing of gene and protein names; however, printed journals almost always will.) Consistency is most important though, and this article has some naming inconsistencies throughout that should be fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	• Except for my comment below about the defining sentence, the lead is excellent—especially at expressing why TBR1 is important.  • I would suggest that the opening sentence be modified. As it stands now, TBR1 is defined as the product of a gene. I would change the defining statement to be about the protein itself rather than about its relation to its gene—for example, "T-box, brain, 1 is a transcription factor protein important in vertebrate embryo development." Otherwise, it's not really a definition. It would be like saying, "The Washington Monument is a building made from a blueprint by the architect...." (WP:MOSBEGIN) Helpful comment from Boghog  • Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, the scope of these articles is about both the protein and the gene encoding the protein. In addition, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise: <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene. The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for commenting. If I understand the Gene Wiki project correctly, its purpose to make numerous stubs, with the intent that those stubs are expanded into full articles. The purpose of the consensus policy you listed—it seems to me— was to come up with a template opening sentence for a generic protein stub, which is quite diffetent from a good article. I think that it is a very good thing that projects such as Gene Wiki exist, but having developed into a full article now, I don't think it is fair to consider this a "Gene Wiki" article. (If anything, it now falls under the "jurisdiction" of WP:MCB.) I still strongly hold to my opinion that the opening sentence could be much improved—even more so now that you have shared that the "that" was meant to be nonrestrictive. Nonrestrictive clauses should always be set off with commas, and most style editors will tell you to use "which" instead of "that". In any case, I have already passed this article for criteria 1. My suggestion would be to improve the defining sentences, but it is only a suggestion. If it is not changed, it will not affect my decision to pass or fail the article. I do sincerely thank you for commenting. I think it is good and more fair to have as many involved in a GA review as possible. Regards ~ Lhynard (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)  • The lead is technical, but I do not think that can be avoided. But since it is technical, I think the link to cortex should be moved earlier to "cortical" and corrected to target the specific cortex intended.  • I would rename Functions and mechanisms to simply Functions and perhaps cut some of the mechanistic statements, as the mechanisms are all discussed in detail under Gene regulation below.  • An additional issue with the lead I forgot to mention last night. The alternative names for TBR1 should also be bolded (MOS:BOLDSYN). [  Done Lhynard (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)] In addition, you should make each synonym into a redirect page to this article. [  Done Lhynard (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	• You even listed your See alsos alphabetically.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	• Ref. 2 and 4 are the same.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	• not sure that the section Modulation of NMDAR adds to the article  • Science articles are very difficult to write without becoming too technical. You have done a very good job for the most part. The one exception, in my opinion, is section 3. Most of what is said in this section is repeated later in the article and more clearly. (See also my above comment for criterion 1b Re: the title of the section.)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	• The image Reeler_ontogenesis.png does not have a source listed, which makes me suspicious that it is actually free. The uploader is no longer active, which furthers my suspicion. On the other hand, I have no doubts you loaded in in godd faith. One easy, safe option would be to replace the image with the two found on Reeler, which are more clearly sourced.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	• "Neocorticogenesis" in the caption of the second image should be wikilinked.  • More images might be helpful—especially in a technical article such as this. Some suggestions (if they can be found):  • a labeled image or diagram of the neo- or cerebral cortex?  • a labeled image or diagram of the olfactory bulbs?  • a diagram of a neuron (See, for example, Axon.) for the Functions section?  • Your second image shows the 6 layers of the cortex that you often refer to; it might be helpful to reference the figure in the text the first time you mention these in Tissue and cellular distribution.  • The second image should also include alt text. (WP:ALT)
	7. Overall assessment.	In my opinion, this is a good Wikipedia article. I congratulate all of you on your efforts at improving and expanding it. The biggest area of improvement would be with the links, which, as I noted above, should be used only at their first occurance and not repeated. This change will greatly improve the undertandability of the text.

---

Extra Comments:

• Disambig link: While it will have no bearing on whether the nomination passes or fails, please fix the link cortex to the specific "cortex" to which you are referring. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Done 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)