Talk:Robert W. Doty

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SMentink, Z-VanS, Laurenbaylor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello, I found your paper very interesting. I like how you incorporated personal information that was not related to his career in science. I think your paper could be improved by correcting a few grammatical errors. It also might be a good idea to include references for some of his papers/publications. Good job! --Mdomin-mu (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Changing some small details

Hey! So I think you guys should separate his education from "honorable mentions". I think you should make a new subheader and place his education there. Some of his education you guys mentioned does not seem to fit under the "honorable mentions" subtopic. If anything you could list the awards that he's gotten or like any funding for his research. 8421nguyena (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion For Improvement

Hello,

I think that you should expand on the career and research portion of the page; when you discuss his first paper being published, talk about what the paper was about, and briefly do this for other mentions of papers too. The honorable mention section should be retitled to something like 'Personal Life' and moved to right after early life. You could also list personal accolades in the career portion as well to provide a more colored description of his past. KevinKicmal (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hey! I think the article is very well written. I would just say so add a little more detail about his research. I like how you mention what discoveries his research helped with but adding more specifics about his research and what he was studying would strengthen the relationship between his research and further discoveries. I would also suggest adding some pictures. Some illustrations would help with making the article easier to read. NGalvanMU (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Great job on your article. I enjoyed the extra details you provided about his early life, as those details can be difficult to find sometimes. I also appreciated that you expanded on his time in the military, as that seemed to be a very important part of his life, as the GI bill got his through the remainder of his schooling. However, that paragraph about his schooling and teaching did seem rambling; it may be easier to list out where he went to school, etc. Also, there is a lot of well-defined research on the hemispheres of the brain, so I think you could have expanded more about what research he did in more detail since he did dedicate his life to research. Otherwise, good work! 8396propsok (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hi! The article is very well written with no visible grammar or spelling mistakes that I caught. I learned a lot about Doty's history and neuroscience background, but I feel like there were a couple things missing or that could be clarified. In the opening paragraph I feel like there could have been more added summarizing what Doty achieved in life along with a preface to the rest of the article. A source I see that you cited was from Neurotree about his history and obituary. This does pass as a secondary source but I also found good information here that you could add to your paper. I find that you could add on to the information given in this website, or paraphrase better when explaining in "early life" and "research". Also, some of the hyperlinks that were created don't work, so I would try removing them. I think overall in the research section it is written well, but I think it could be expanded by explaining what they did in the specific experiments. Not extensively, but that section could be a little more in depth. Also, I know there might not be pictures available about Dr. Doty, but I think an added picture or two could be added to make it look a little nicer. For the "Honorable Mentions" maybe you could go more into the dates for them or just go more in depth in case someone doesn't know what a certain award was. Overall, It looks okay, but maybe going over it and filling in little details would make the article more complete. But good job overall. Ecampe (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We removed the broken links and added some images to the page relevant to Doty's life and research as you suggested. We also added in details in sections where we were able to, within constraints of the sources we could find. We felt that the opening paragraph was a concise summary of the page and chose not to add anything else. Laurenbaylor (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello! After reading your article, there are somethings I would advise in fixing. There are no issues with spelling or grammar. The prose is clear and easy to understand. I do suggest in splitting up the 2nd sentence in the "Early Life" section. It is very wordy and there are too many commas. I would also shorten sentence 5 in the "Honorable Mentions" section. You mention all the degrees he had achieved in the time span of 3 years but the sentence itself is wordy. I would recommend removing words like "and" trying to concise the information to make it clearer to follow. Your article does comply with the manual style guidelines so no issues with that. Your article is verifiable and doesn't contain any original research. All references are accounted for. I would advise to remove the supposed link for "luxotonic cells". The word is currently displayed in red. When I went to go click on it, there was no current page present for it. I would advise in removing the link and leaving it without a link attached to it. The article does cover many important topics for Robert W. Doty. I would suggest to concise all of the research information into one section. Having "Research" and "Career" condensed into one section with "Other research" right below it makes information look scattered. I would also suggest on expanding more on the "Research" section. Perhaps even highlighting some of his most important research and elaborating on that would be a good idea. Your article does present a neutral perspective on Doty so no issues there. I would also suggest separate the education information from the "Honorable mentions" section as that information should be as section within itself. There doesn't seem to be any issues with stability of the article at this time. I saw that there aren't any images on your page. I would recommend adding a few images of Doty and his work if possible to find these sources without any issues. One source that I looked into the article on "Laminar variation in threshold for detection...". The article does pass as a secondary source. The source did touch on what was explained in "Career and Research" section although the information presented in that section was rather vague. I would elaborate more on the contents of the experiment and why it was significant in Doty's career. Other than fixing a couple things from what was suggested I like where the article is headed. --Miralex0209 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. We have split up the second sentence in early life along with tweaking some of the preexisting information. We also completely reconfigured our honorable mentions section and dispersed its content appropriately. The sentence covering his education was also edited to be more precise. The sentence regarding the luxotonic cells was rewritten and the hyperlink was removed from it. Additionally, the research section was combined with the career section. The information about his education was separated from honorable mentions and added to its own section with the military content. We had a significant amount of trouble trying to find pictures of Dr. Doty but did find other relevant pictures. We also did not expand on the experiment because we didn't think it added enough to the article for it to be added. Thank you very much for the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMentink (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hi! I really liked how there was an introduction paragraph that gave a detailed yet short overall look at who he is. I also liked how you talked about the specific things that he contributed too and how there was a bit of background information into those. I would however try to add a picture of him or maybe just a picture in general. Also, if he received any specific awards maybe add those or give examples of the published papers that he worked on. Overall, good start though!

Response to Feedback

Hello! Thanks for the awesome feedback everyone, in response to some of your suggestions I have restructured how some of the sections were ordered and named to make more chronological sense, removed a faulty link, and combined repeated information, which should make the article more easy to follow. I also replaced a removed citation with a more reputable source.

Thanks again for the feedback Z-VanS (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)