Talk:Neural synchrony/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

BGsynch21 Will review soon! The article was waiting for a while, I am sorry for this. Could you please leave a note that you are still interested in working on this? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• My first question concerns the title. You write In the current literature, neural synchrony is notably distinct from intra-brain synchrony—sometimes also called neural synchrony. However, if I enter the term in Google Scholar, most results I see seem to be about "intra-brain synchrony" if I understand correctly. Given this potential confusion, I wonder if it would be preferable to use another, more unambiguous article title, such as Brain-to-brain coupling. See also WP:Common name.
• Connecting to the point above: I don't see "intra-brain synchrony" repeated in the text body, it only appears in the lead, where it has no source. So, we clearly need at least one good source that states that the term "neural synchrony" is, in the literature, mostly restricted to "brain-to-brain coupling" and not "intra-brain synchrony". But even if this can be demonstrated, moving the article to a less ambiguous title would still be worth consideration.
• The next problem is accessibility. A "Good Article"is required to comply with Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. This is, of course, a highly technical topic so it may never be fully understandable (at least without sacrificing too much precision, which we don't want either). BUT I think there is room for improvement, and I'm looking at the lead, where this is especially important. I have some specific recommendations here:
  • Neural synchrony is the correlation of brain activity – insert "correlation (coupling)", or replace "correlation" with "coupling".
  • between the spatio-temporal neural fluctuations of multiple people – maybe "between neural fluctuations of multiple people over time in different brain areas" or something similar.
  • This phenomenon represents the convergence and coupling of different people's neurocognitive systems – isn't that simply the definition given by the first sentence, put in more complex terms? If so, deleting this can make the lead clearer.
  • neural substrate – link all technical terms like this one
• Increasingly implemented by social and affective neuroscientists, neural synchrony approaches represent an important theoretical and methodological contribution to the field. – This does not provide any facts, it simply says neural synchrony is "important" (see MOS:PEACOCK). This point, however, becomes clear in the following sentences. I think the lead may be more concise if this sentence is removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing note: Failing now because of no response. I strongly encourage re-nominating once above points are addressed; if you ping me, I'm happy to pick up the review again. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)