The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:29, 3 March 2008.

---

Brain[edit]

previous FAC

Check external links

Nominator: All the problems cited in the previous FAC have been addressed and corrected. It now fulfills the FA criteria. -- Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Comments Reads real good so far, will go read it more in depth after to see if I can get anything else that could be worked on. So far two things I saw.

This image [[1]] is blurred and out of focus. And I do think it would be better if it would be changed to an image of an actual dish. As of now, it makes more sense on Comparative Anatomy then Nourishment.

On the lead it reads the brain is the control center of the central nervous system, responsible for behavior.. I'm no physician but I'm sure it controls more than behavior, logical thought for example. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a lot more of inline citations than it has now. I think only section has them. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. More references. In complex, there are very-short sections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I really hoped this would be an FA, but it still needs a significant work to out into to become one. Here are a the first issues that come into my mind:

1. MANY MORE references -right now it has only 18, and anything bellow ~50 is way too little for an article of this size and which covers so much current research literature; I would suggest to aim for 100+ refs.
2. the format of the article seems fairly random. sections are not put into a logical order.
3. insufficient discussion on invertebrate brain. maybe try adding at least an image for this segment
4. intro sould probably recieve a bit of expansion, and perhaps better written
5. more skematic images would definately help
6. maybe a table with brain sizes/masses among different species or groups

Try looking at Cerebellum maybe it would help. Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As above, a very poorly referenced article, not even to GA standard.--GrahamColm^Talk 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.