Talk:Nerve net

October 21, 2012

Hello, our names are Nicole Carroll, Kishanraj Bhakta, and Craig Parsons and we are students at Boston college enrolled in an Intoduction to Neuroscience course. We are currently working on a project attempting to expand upon the Nerve Net wikipedia page. This task is udertaken by the Society for Neurosciences and we hope to do our best in improving this article. This project is scheduled to be completed by December 3, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.252.92 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought this article was very good. You did a good job describing the various organisms and the evolution of a nerve net. However, the first thing I noticed was a grammatical error in you evolution section. It was in the third to last sentence "This is due to the first appearance of neurogenesis occurred in eumetazoa, which was a common ancestor of coelenterates and bilaterians". Also I think that you do a good job describing sensory and motor neurons but I think the article could benefit with some description and talk of intermediate neurons, which detect patterns in sensory neurons and send signals to groups of motor neurons. Overall I think you did a good job and there were minor tweaks that will make your article just slightly better. Cameron Perry 91 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys, I really enjoyed your article. I found the examples of organisms that have nerve nets and how they function within those organisms to make the article more accessible. On the other hand, while I find these examples help with the overall content of the page, I think sections such as the Developmental Neurogenesis section would benefit from a few sentences on the development of nerve nets in general, not just in cnidaria. By beginning sections with a broader description, the specific examples of nerve nets would make a lot more sense. In addition, I would suggest putting the Anatomy section earlier as it gives a good broad description that will help the reader apply that information to the rest of the article. Also I found a one or two minor grammatical errors in your evolution section's second paragraph, so you might want to read it over again. Overall great page, and from the comments below it seems you really were able to overhaul this stub!Devitod (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Pain

What? Pain isn't something that is simply sensed, it is something that is perceived. This article seems to imply that these extremely simple, decentralized nervous systems somehow allow the animal to be consciously aware of their environment, which is utterly ridiculous.

I've rewritten it, I simply couldn't stand to see such nonsense... Richard001 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

While I admire your intolerance of nonsense, I fear that it could lead to madness if you apply it to Wikipedia.  Mr JM  23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello, I think you have a great start to your article, the examples are used very well in some cases to accurately put the information into perspective. However, I believe that overall you need to include more descriptive information about the general definition of what a nerve net is, without relating it to Cnidaria or other organisms. The Introduction section seems also seems to have a tad of a tangent, which I would watch out for. This section needs to be concise and tell the reader exactly what the nerve net is and how it functions generally. Some of the information you put in the Anatomy section may be a good example of this. Some of the information now in the introduction may also be expanded upon and put in its own section, for example "Examples in Organisms." (Or something along those lines). The Evolution section needs some work as some the writing was a bit confusing to understand. Also I think it may be more clear if the second paragraph came first. One example of grammar that you should watch out for is "and they are the first two phyla that differentiated nervous systems based on synaptic conduction." I read this sentence several times and was trying to grasp exactly what you mean. From what I gather you mean that these were the first to phyla that had nervous systems that were based on synaptic conduction? Try to make some of these concepts more clear. Also, try to briefly describe some of the terms that you hyperlink. Hyperlinking is very useful in that it can provide more information on a topic, but no one wants to stop reading frequently to understand a term. This will effectively make it flow more. Finally, I would suggest the use of pictures in some areas, for example the section on Developmental Neurogenesis, as it may serve as a helpful tool for the reader to refer to while reading, often times it is hard to picture so much information in one's head. Overall, I think your section of physiology and anatomy is good, perhaps expand on it more if there is available information? In general, I think your biggest issue you should focus on is organization and flow, your key focus should be making the article accessible and as comprehendible as possible to a wide audience, as wikipedia is used by all age groups. Overall this is a great start, and with a few tweaks your on your way to a very good final product! Goldbejk (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review for BI481

The article touches on a lot of interesting point, but I think that you need to be more specific as what a nerve net is and include information about how a nerve net affects the fitness of organisms like Cnidarians. I also think the the Physiology section should be expanded and more information should be included about the mechanisms involved in the nerve cells communicating in a nerve net. Overall, the article has great descriptions and explanations but the addition and expansion on information that I mentioned would make for a great final product. Bellre (talk) 25:03, 19 November 2012

Peer Review

I like how well put together this article is. The explanations and definitions are very organic. As far as improvement, I would suggest that the anatomy section should be expanded a bit further, specifically in example cases. An image would definitely help amplify the information being explained in that section, such as this one: http://w3.shorecrest.org/~Lisa_Peck/MarineBio/syllabus/ch7invertebrates/Invertwp/2007/eby/nervenet.gif

Aside from the anatomy section, the intro could maybe use less of an explanation in terms of specific examples towards species, and rather more general information on the nerve net itself. What makes it different from symmetrical nervous system specifically. Advantages? Disadvantages? Reasons for a species having radial symmetry needing this trait? Not that this was not already mentioned or intended to be explained, but I thought it could help. Otherwise it's looking very good. Waleedfarag (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)