Talk:Biological neuron model

A fact from Biological neuron model appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 November 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that certain biological neuron models are a literally spherical cow, in that the cell is approximated to be a sphere?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/November.

Wikipedia

Article Structure has been reworked

the article should now move to quality class B or A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiking16 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some more explanation is needed in Integrate-and-fire section

THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SOLVED NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiking16 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When an electrical circuit is considered with capacitor and battery alone, it is assumed that the current that flows through the capacitor is displacement current only and no direct flow of free charges occurs. In this section I has been taken to be the current due to actual movement of charges across the membrane and then that is equated with the dynamics of capacitor. Some more clarification is required to justify this equation.

Snehalshekatkar (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of a rewrite in that paragraph, which had a lot of stupid wording and perhaps blatantly wrong statements. Also, I think I may have originally wrote it... though my excuse it was probably 2am and I was in the middle of grad school at the time. So yeah, I probably have a bunch more mistakes in the article -- it seems I'm not describing the flow of ions, the nature of capacitance, or even the process of depolarization coherently at all. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 might be invalid: Koch, Segev p.687 - the page does not exist in the book I have, and a search didn't yield a 'integrate and fire' treatment. Ran Feldesh (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biological neuron model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613230629/http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~larry/AbbottBrResBul99.pdf to http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~larry/AbbottBrResBul99.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Tone

This article reads more like a journal or textbook than it does an encyclopedia entry, so I've gone ahead and added the tone template. The introduction section, and the many, improper uses of pronouns like "we" across the article tipped me off. I would like to rework this article to better fit Wikipedia's tone, but the contents are outside of my field of expertise, and also the sheer scale of the article makes it a fairly daunting task. Saghetti (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After going through more of the article, it's even messier than I first thought.

Citations are used in a really weird way. In many places, they're treated like links to sources, rather than as a way to source content in the article. This is especially evident in all the various tables around the article, labeled "Experimental evidence supporting the model".

Some of the citations are just text, rather than actual Wikipedia-style citations. Ex:

Modern views regarding of the role of the scientific model suggest that "All models are wrong but some are useful" (Box and Draper, 1987, Gribbin, 2009; Paninski et al., 2009).

The headers in some sections are overly verbose, such as "General comments regarding the modern perspective of scientific and engineering models"

On that topic, this entire article is verbose, and difficult to understand in parts. Maybe it's just because I'm not an expert, but I shouldn't have to be one to understand what's going on.

There's a lot more I could write about the issues on this article, but I feel like this is enough explanation as to why I added the cleanup templates. Instead of writing about every single issue, it would be better to just fix them. Saghetti (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the intro text. I'll continue editing the rest of the article if you find my changes to be helpful. AppliedMathematician (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]