Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Basal ganglia circuits (2nd nomination)

Basal ganglia circuits (2nd nomination)

Reason: Vector image explaining the circuits of the basal ganglia in an anatomically precise and almost artistic manner, facilitating the understanding of Parkinson's disease and other basal ganglia diseases. Improvements since first nomination: Imported raster image of brain replaced with a 100% vector one, as well as more clear distinction between the upper and lower brain layer.
Articles in which this image (or a derived raster of it) appears

FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
Creator: User:Mikael Häggström, based on images by Andrew Gillies/User:Anaru and Patrick J. Lynch

Support as nominator Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support: From my POV the image looks great, has a very high potential encyclopedic value and it is of high technical quality. Nevertheless lacks a description, which is not covered by simply giving a reference and a link the basal ganglia article since of the facts lacking are image dependent. I believe that description should at least include 1-the meaning of the color scheme (why some arrows are green, others, blue, and still others red?), 2-comment on the fact that arrows give info on the neurotransmitter used on the connection, wether it is direct or not and wether it is inhibitory or not (it is assumed than a user of the image has to know this). The meaning of the + and - at the point of the arrows should also be given, 3-Info on the difference between inhibitory, des-inhibitory (would not it be excitatory?) and des-des-inhibitory (what does this one mean). 4-The fact that 2 coronal slices have been superimposed (it took me 10 minutes to discover it) to be able to see all needed structures. On the graphic side it is hard to distinguish structure from function. Maybe a different kind of surface, tone, design, (or whatever works) would be better for the arrows. A minor problem are incoherencies in capitalization of neurotransmitters (GABA is understandable that it has to be capitalized but glutamatergic and dopaminergic style should be consistent, and from my POV would be more aesthethic to be in non capitals). A doubt: Is it globus pallidus interna, globus pallidus internus or both are correct? (Second gives more hits on google).--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! A description is now included both in the image page in Commons as well as in the image text in Wikipedia articles. I've bolded and italizized the names of structures - maybe it helps some. Glutamatergic pathways are given in non-capitals and internal globus pallidus is given instead of globus pallidus interna, making interna/internus non-important (vice versa for externa). Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has clearly improved. Nevertheless it is still not clear the meaning of the + and - at the end of each arrow. I would say something like + and - signs at the point of the arrows indicate respectively wether the pathway is excitatory or inhibitory in effect. Green arrows refer to excitatory glutamatergic pathways, red arrows refer to inhibitory GABAergic pathways... Also from my POV it would sound better to say 2 coronal slices that have been superimposed to include the involved basal ganglia structures., but it may be due only to me being spanish. --Garrondo (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I've expanded the descriptions a bit further. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another inconsistency: why is most text in black but GABAergic, dis-inhibitory an indirect pathway sometimes in black an others red? I would have all in black for consistency. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is green as well, related to inhibitory or excitatory effect. However, it can be confusing without further explanation, so I can make those texts just black in the next update. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be a better idea: it is almost impossible to distinguish black from green, and there are already many colors an info in the drawing.--Garrondo (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this latest update of the image now simply has black text in those places. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: I think you forgot some GABAergic and left them in red (although I am not sure due to the only slight difference with black...). In addition it also seems that letters linking striatum to external globus pallidus are darker or bigger than all others.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought at least some red should be left to associate with the redness of the arrows. With only a slight difference from black, I doubt it would be confusing. I think the letters in the arrow from striatum to external globus pallidus look bigger mainly in thumbnail versions of the picture, because it is not turned to any degree but completely horizontal. The issue may go away when zooming in to its "natural" size. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Highly encyclopedic. The new caption is very useful, thanks. NauticaShad es 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ support Good enc., accurate based on given sources, but the black text over the part of the brain that's shaded black is a tad difficult to read. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of dilemma there. Substantia nigra should be rather blackish to distinguish it from it's rather faded color as seen in the derived picture of the circuits in Parkinson's disease, as well as in real pictures [1]. Yet, the text should be consistent with that over the other structures. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could duplicate "substantia nigra" and move substantia nigra pars compacta a bit to the left so it is less over black and the opposite with substantia nigra pars reticulata. Nevertheless only a proposal, it may not work.--Garrondo (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted it some now. The main adjustment, however, was in aligning the borders of the brain slice above so that it covered and brightened up the area below the text. It may make the picture slightly less anatomically correct, but I don't think those few millimeters are of any significance. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support To my eyes, this looks excellent particularly with the new caption. Cowtowner (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it just me who sees the text as horrendously wonky? What's going on there? Look at "dopaminergic", for instance- "minergic" seems to be lower than "dopa". J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little imperfection in the rendering of svg images in MediaWiki. It doesn't look like that in Inkscape. It gets a little better by pressing F5 to update the page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How annoying. Weak support; seems good enough technically. I can't begin to comment on its accuracy, so I'll leave that to others. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]