Talk:Gerald Fischbach/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that this article is connected with the Neuroscience course at Boston College. If there is any information you would like to provide me about the project that may be relevant to my review, please let me know. I see that the article was nominated by Kierak33, were there other students involved in this project?--Tea with toast (話) 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed[edit]

Hello. I'm about half way through my review, but I've noticed a few things that need to be taken care. The first is citation style errors; I've been fixing several of them, but there are too many for me to deal with, so I will ask you to take care of the rest of them. (See subsection below). The next item is the citation that is needed for the "Education" section. I verified what was contained in the reference given and there was no mention of his wife or children, so another will need to be found. If you can't find a ref, then just take out those sentences since they are not necessarily vital to the article. Over the next few days I will go through all of the sources and citations to make sure that they are all in agreement.

Most of the changes that I have made to the article are simple formatting edits, some of them are a bit particular to Wikipedia as compared to other writing style you may use in school. One such category is Endashes. Please see that link to learn how to use them. You can also review the changes I made to the article as an example for their proper use. --Tea with toast (話) 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I changed all the remaining publication references using the bot so hopefully those will appear in a couple hours. I also changed all the website references to match the initial website reference you fixed. The dates the articles were published are included, but I can remove those if you think they are unnecessary. Additionally, I reviewed the Endashes and will fix any problems I come across today. Thank you again for all your help! Kierak33 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation style examples[edit]

Please use the following format for all journal article citations:

  • Tsuboi, K.; Takezaki, N.; Ueda, N. (2007). "The N-Acylethanolamine-Hydrolyzing Acid Amidase (NAAA)". Chemistry & Biodiversity. 4 (8): 1914. doi:10.1002/cbdv.200790159. PMID 17712833.

Please note the places of periods and spaces. Journal titles should be italicized, the only the volume number is in bold and the issue number is in parentheses. One really awesome tool that makes this a lot easier are the templates Template:Cite pmid and Template:Cite doi. If your ref has a PMID or a doi, all you have to do is enter the number into the template and a bot will fill all the details in for you! Example:

  • <ref name=Tsuboi2007>{{cite pmid|17712833}}</ref>. That should produce the citation above. (It might take the bot a few hours to get to it, and you should always check up on it later. Sometimes the bot will make minor errors, which you can edit for yourself)

For the web citations, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style#Websites and webpages and follow those formatting rules. Only the title of the webpage should be linked to the source (thus, only the title should be in blue). All web pages should have a retrieval or access date. My personal preference for the style of dating is "4 December 2011" or "December 4, 2011" (I avoid numbers-only dating since some Europeans would confuse 12-4-2011 for April 12th.) So long as the date numbering is the same for all refs, I'll be happy.

Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes needed[edit]

Hello. I apologize for the delay in completing my review of this article. In general, GA reviews can take up to a week for an editor to perform, but normally I try to get it done as soon as I sign up to review. I have finished my review of the article, and I see that there are a few changes that need to be made before I can pass it. The biggest change that is needed is that there should be a section dedicated solely to his research. Right now, all of his research endeavors are scattered into the timeline of the locations he work, and from this it is hard to really grasp his scientific accomplishments aside from his executive roles. Creating a new section would also help clean up other problems I see in the text, such as repeating information about neuregulin and the mention of his 1993 work in the 1966-73 section. I do not think it should take too much work to pull sentences from the various subsections to create a new section, just be sure that when you paste together all the science-related sentences that you include a few transitions so that the new section flows better. For what remains of the chronology of his career, you can still keep the mention that x discovery occurred in y location, and other such important info. Let me know if you have any questions about this or if you need any help.

Two other items:

  1. Ref #22. Please find a new source. It is invalid to cite another wikipedia page as a reference. It is okay to use internal links or to make footnotes that link to another Wikipedia article, but do not cite it as a source reference.
  2. Towards the end of the "National institute..." subsection: "This indicated that neuregulin is not necessary for the proliferation of oligodendrocyte multipotent precursor cells.". I do hope that the word "not" is an error, because all the evidence I read seems that neuregulin is necessary, and if my assumption is wrong, then I need to spend more with this to make sure I get everything correct.

I will put the article on hold until these changes can be made. I thank you for all your effort in working on this page; the changes you have made to this previous stub are remarkable. Keep up the good work! --Tea with toast (話)

Hi Tea with Toast!

I changed ref #22 to the original publication the h index comes from. It was added by another Wikipedia editor who helps the Society for Neuroscience, which is why we left it in place. Additionally, neuregulin affects oligodendrocyte proliferation but has no effect on the precursor cells. Below is the section of the publication this came from:

"Recombinant Neuregulin Rescues Oligodendrocyte Development. We next wanted to determine whether neuregulins were necessary before or after 9.5 dpc for oligodendrocyte development to proceed normally. To address this question, spinal cords from E9.5 embryos were used to generate parallel cultures. One culture received 1 nM recombinant neuregulin, and the other received a control buffer at the time of plating. The addition of recombinant neuregulin rescued oligodendrocyte development in explants from NRG −/− mice (Fig. ​(Fig.2),2), and thus we conclude that neuregulin is necessary for oligodendrocyte development in spinal cord after ≈9.5 dpc. Because recombinant neuregulin can rescue oligodendrocyte development when added at ≈9.5 dpc, it is unlikely that neuregulin is required for the survival, differentiation, or proliferation of a primitive, multipotent precursor cell present before this stage."

Lastly, in regards to creating a research section. I feel that in the current format the information in each section introduces the research Fischbach conducted at each post he held, which our group believed made the article easier to follow. It created a chronological timeline in which you can see the progression of his research and understand the roles he held at each university or agency. My concern is that by creating a research section the original sections will seem to have no purpose other than to say he held this post or this position in addition to making a very dense research section. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks again

Kierak33 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Note on ref 22: this was not a reference to a Wikipedia article. It was a reference to the Web of Science. As WoS has an article here, I wikilinked it, but I see how this can be confusing. I have modified the reference, hopefully it is more clear now. Unfortunately, I cannot give a URL. WoS is behind a paywall and URLs are dynamic, meaning that they would only work for me on the particular computer that I happen to use at the moment that I am accessing WoS... However, anyone with access can easily check the ref. (And WP does not forbid references to paywalled articles). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Final review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Great work! --Tea with toast (話) 04:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)