Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Homology

Untitled

The assessement that "The external segment of the globus pallidus (Gpe) in primates is homologous to GP in non-primates, whereas their internal segment corresponds to the entopeduncular nucleus in non-primates" is incorrect, even false. There is some provocation to assess that the situation would be more clear in non-primate where there is no medial part! Such possitions would lead to the fact that no progress can be made in the redaction of this article and no useful pathophysiological comparisons. --Gerard.percheron 15:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)user:gerard.percheron[reply]

Again

This commentary remains true. I do not understand why the poor first version, with no care about corections, is again proposed. There is no interest to continue to link the pallidum with the putamen. This is simply misleading, replacing the description one century ago.--Gerard.percheron 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)gerard.percheron[reply]

Current edits by anon feel like nonsense, but I am too ignorant of the subject to know. Could someone look them over? ThanksDlohcierekim 12:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{Review}} hopefully an expert will notice it in a timely manner and fix it.

I don't think that there are any actual errors in the additions, but they are poorly written and, in my opinion, at too complex a level for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. JeremyA 14:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Completely over my head. Perhaps someone could bring this down to the level of a simple layman????Dlohcierekim 14:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a go at a copyedit, which pretty much ended up being a revert of the anons edits. I'll maybe do a more detailed edit later. JeremyA 14:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pallidum?

It looks like the first sentence of this article say that the terms "pallidum" and "globus pallidus" are the same thing. Globus pallidus is dorsal pallidum and ventral pallidum comprises nucleus basalis in substantia innominata. Maybe this should be addressed...(unsigned comment)

That's interesting - although it appears that the first sentence has been removed, I thought that the Globus pallidus and the Pallidum were the same thing though maybe I'm wrong. According to this [1] the nucleus basalis is part of the substantia innominata. The ventral pallidum has certainly been named in some high profile research papers [2]. 194.83.141.231 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Globus pallidus. 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/20060207132123/http://www.prometheus.uni-tuebingen.de/sec/vl/documents/42/bgana_normal.gif to http://www.prometheus.uni-tuebingen.de/sec/vl/documents/42/bgana_normal.gif

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) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pacemaker?

I think the section on the GP "pacemaker" is too short, and the explanation it links to seems too technical for those unfamiliar with/beginning to study neuroanatomy. Patients and lay people may think this has something to do with cardiac pacemakers without a simple explanation. Could this benefit from a simple explanation before linking to the in-depth article? Myoglobin (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]