Talk:Donald L. Price

Untitled

Hi Kat! How are you? This is my comment on someone else's talk page!

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): Kit-Kat834, Cdol97, TristanAB, Luke.van0924.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review

This article is reader friendly with it's vocabulary but I feel like the research section has a lot to it that is not necessarily all together. Consider using subtitles to make the section seem less intimidating and give some organization to the section. I verified the following article: Troncoso, Juan (2012-11-01). "Meritorious Contributions to Neuropathology". Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology. 71 (11): 1030–1031. doi:10.1097/NEN.0b013e318273643e. ISSN 0022-3069. and it is a legitimate secondary article. The introduction paragraph briefly mentions his family at the end but the article does not mention his family again. Consider adding a family section or removing that sentence from the introduction paragraph. The article is broad on the subject of Donald, it does get a little specific about his research but I do not see it out of place. The grammar, spelling, and syntax all seem to be well done. The flow of the article is a bit choppy in the research section but that is nothing a few subheadings cannot fix. Other than that, it is a well written article. --Vale9616 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to Vale9616: Thank you for taking time to read our review and giving suggestions. We have changed the organization of our sections so that it can be less intimidating. We have taken your suggestion and decided to separate the Career and Research into two different sections. We have also added a small subheader in the research to separate his main research which is Alzheimer's Disease. We have decided to keep that one sentence about his family to briefly state more information about his life, however we did not go into depth about his children specifically because they are not our main focus. However, we did state that they all do work in the medicine field. Thank you again for your suggestoins and kind comments. Kit-Kat834 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Kit-Kat834

Primary Review

This article is well written. In the introduction section, I think it could be helpful to include a sentence or two on his research and its significance in the scientific community, as it is discussed in great detail later on in the article. I also think the research section could benefit from more organization via subsections. Overall, though, the article has a nice flow to it.

Because this is a biographical article, I think some more attention on the details of his early life would benefit the reader. The article could also use some more details on the specifics of his research. Even though the article relies heavily on a summary of the research he participated in, it doesn't so much provide detailed information on where he conducted research or an explanation of the papers he participated in publishing.

With such a large amount of information, this article could benifit from a few more pictures. I do not see a picture of Dr. Price, and because it is a biographical article, I think that is an essential addition.

I verified: Price, D. L.; Tanzi, R. E.; Borchelt, D. R.; Sisodia, S. S. (1998). "Alzheimer's disease: genetic studies and transgenic models". Annual Review of Genetics. 32: 461–493. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.32.1.461. ISSN 0066-4197. PMID 9928488

This is a secondary article that gives information on the studies done on Alzheimer's disease, and it is referenced briefly in the research summary section. Because the source talks in great detail on the science behind AD, the authors did right by briefly summarizing the significance of the research presented in the article.

AllysCartwright (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to AllyCartwright: Thank you for taking time and reading our article. We appreciate all your suggestions and comments. We have taken your suggestions into consideration and edited the introduction and added subsections within our research section. We have added a couple of sentences about his research and its significance to the scientific community in the introduction just as you suggested. Also, we added the subsection called "Alzheimer's Disease" to separate his main research from his early research years summary. From all the research and articles we have found about Price, this was as much information about his early life that we could find. There was not as much article that talked about his early life or family, so we apologize that we cannot add any more about it. We have also attempted to add a photo of Price, however, it kept getting taken down. Thank you for all your suggestions and comments. Kit-Kat834 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Kit-Kat834

Secondary Review

Hello authors. I particularly liked the way that you all wrote the awards sections. I found it easier to follow all the awards Price has received instead of just listing it in paragraph form where one could get confused on what award goes with what year. It was easy to follow when the award was presented and what the name of the award was listed next to it in the table. I also found it easier to navigate all the publications Price has received when the layout was a bullet point list. The links were very helpful because one can go to the publications themselves and read them if they please. Overall, I think the article was easy to follow and was very well organized. --AMMarquette (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary ReviewBNunez13 (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is well written it is concise, clear and purposeful. There are no spelling or grammar mistakes and the way it is written is understandable and mostly easy to read. Suggestions on how to make it easier to read is mentioned later. There is a list of references that are reliable and includes secondary sources. There is a primary source in the resources but it's to cite a publication. This article addresses the main topics needed and all the information in the article enhances the article. The article has a neutral tone and stays impartial. This article is stable and no edit war is in progress. For the illustration it is cited correctly.

I would add that to enhance the article layout and make it easier to read is to divide the section of career and research. This would enhance the appearance and help split up information that doesn't directly go together. For the illustration I would add that to mention the picture directly when discussing the defects in the brain due to Alzheimer. The image is technical and the words used in the image are not mentioned in the article. So mention the terminology used in the picture or maybe find a better picture if available.

For the secondary source I looked at Price, D. L.; Tanzi, R. E.; Borchelt, D. R.; Sisodia, S. S. (1998). "Alzheimer's disease: genetic studies and transgenic models". Annual Review of Genetics. 32: 461–493. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.32.1.461. ISSN 0066-4197. PMID 9928488. This was cited correctly and did mention what was in the article correctly like the source did. This source has technical terminology so the way that it was explained was done correctly and summarized well.

Response BNenez13 primary review: I appreciate taking the time to read through all of it and giving me ways to improve my talk page. I have separated the careers and research sections so they are their own individual topics. I made sure that the information about Price's career is all in one section while his research is in another. Thank you for suggesting it. Also, the illustration shows the brain defects within the brain of one who has Alzheimer's disease which I did mention the beginning of the research section. Unfortunately, I had trouble looking for images of his university as well as photos that best represented his research. I kept the image since it did fit in with the research section of the article. Thank you for your comments.Kit-Kat834 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Kit-Kat834

Secondary Review

Hello! I am doing a secondary review on this article. I thought all the information provided in the article was written well and easy to understand. A suggestion I have is that maybe you split up the Career/research section of the article into multiple sections instead of just the one. Maybe split it up into Career/education, research, and Alzheimers Disease to help explain the part at the end where the symptoms and the effects of Alzheimers was stated. Also maybe some more pictures could be used to just help give a visual of his work and life. Overall I thought the article was very good and Donald L. Price made some impactful research on one of the most common diseases. Alau0624 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello! I really enjoyed reading your article and feel it is written very well. I really enjoy how you give descriptions for topics mentioned in the research section, such as the fMRI and PET, instead of simply stating a concept without a brief explanation of what it is. It helps readers understand the section overall and the science you are explaining. A suggestion I have is to try and consolidate the idea that Donald L. Price focused on Alzheimer's or try to establish in the beginning of the section that it is his primary focus in order to eliminate some redundancy. For example, you can keep the information about where he studied and received his education as part of the "career" section, and then create a new subsection discussing his "research focus" which delves more into all of his work with Alzheimer's Disease. Another suggestion could be to briefly discuss the notable investigators/physicians that worked with Donald L. Price and how their contributions to science were influenced by Donald L. Price, if you feel that information is relevant to his career or his field of study overall and does not distract from the topic of Donald L. Price directly. Overall, I really enjoyed your article and the content of this article is very well put together! --NCBiology (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello! Before starting, I want to say that this is a very good article and I enjoyed reading everything that Dr. Price has done. After reading and analyzing your Wikipedia page, I wrote my review in the order of the 6 guidelines that should be followed for a good article. 1. Well written: The lead paragraph is well written and includes some introductory information, which is very good. Overall, the page has been well written, and it can be understood by people that don’t have a background in neuroscience. Each section is divided correctly and includes adequate information. 2. Verifiable with no original research: All the hyperlinks direct the reader to other Wikipedia pages, which is great. Also, all the sources used are secondary sources, which abide by the instructions we were given. 3. Broad in coverage: I would say that the group is going into too much detail regarding Alzheimer’s Disease. Although you are describing Dr. Price’s research, there is a paragraph that focuses primarily on describing the disease, which should not be a point of focus. After the line” Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is one of Price’s most research topics” I believe you go into way too many details that could be narrowed down as to not stray away from the main topic, which is Dr. Donald L Price. 4. Neutral: Overall, the article seems to be neutral and takes into account everything that Dr. Price has done. There is no evident bias towards him, and it accurately describes what he has done over the course of his life. 5. Stable: ------- 6. Illustrated: The article only includes one image, which does abide by Wikipedia’s rules and it is related to the content. Nonetheless, I would advise to add more images, as it would make the article seem less text heavy. You guys could add an image on the research section (maybe an image showing neurofibrillary tangles or fMRIs and PET scans) or even try to find a picture of Dr. Price and add it besides your lead paragraph. For the source I reviewed, I chose “Meritorious Contributions to Neuropathology”, which is the fourth cited resource. The article seems to provide a lot of information about Dr. Price, and it is a secondary source that abides by Wikipedia’s rules. I would say that you should also cite this source in your lead paragraph and career paragraph, as the information used in those sections is provided by this source. Everything else in the article is cited correctly and the information does come from the correct source.

SihamS15 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)SihamS15

Response to SihamS15: Thank you for taking the time to read our article and reviewing it. We appreciate all your comments. We apologize if the text was too heavy on Alzheimer's Disease. We have added some background information about the disease for readers to understand more about it before going into detail about Price's research. Also we have attempted to add in more photos, however, they keep getting taken down. We apologize for not being able to do so. Again, thank you for your kind comments. Kit-Kat834 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Kit-Kat834

Secondary Review

Hello! I enjoyed reading your article on Donald L. Price. I liked how short your introduction section was. All of the necessary info was concise and got straight to the point. A couple things I would suggest to fix would be removing the link from "Philip C. Wong" in the Research section. I went to click on the link as it appeared in red and there is no current page for him. Another thing would be to fix run on sentences in the Research section. A couple sentences had the word "and" being repeated several times. These sentences can be split into two to make it less wordy. I also think adding a couple of images would help break up things and make it more visually appealing. Other than that I really enjoyed the layout of your article. It was very easy to navigate with all the links provided. --Miralex0209 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello everyone, I really enjoyed reading this article. It was probably one of the best articles I read so far. It is very well put together and was written in a way that was very formal and presented all the information but in a way that people who do not have a background in science could understand. The only constructive criticism I have is I would suggest you shorten some of your sentences. Some of them can get very lengthy and a little hard to read. For example, in the abstract article, all the information is presented in a way that is restricted to an "and then" circle. NGalvanMU (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello, this paper was very well-written. I really liked that you added a picture. Also, I think the page is very well-formatted. I learned a lot from your research section, especially about Alzheimer's disease. His contributions toward the research of that disease are outstanding. I think it would be a good idea if you added more in-text citations to your research section to avoid plagiarism. Good job! --Mdomin-mu (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hi, I liked how thorough your coverage of his research was, but personally I would like the introduction to flow together more, and possibly include more citations.Z-VanS (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)