Talk:Diane Lipscombe

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): NCBiology, BrittanyMU, Ecampe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues Addressed
Regarding the banner at the top of the article page stating that there were multiple issues with our article, I am here to address them. We have cited many times Brown University's page on Diane Lipscombe which states that she is still alive. We have also included in the references some of her current work that she is working on. We have edited this article so that it fit the encyclopedia tone and doesn't sound as scientific. In editing we believe that we changed the tone so that the article doesn't sound like an advertisement either. This updated version of the article has been reviewed for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. We have omitted words that made this article sound personal, and changed phrases that that made it sound like an argumentative essay as well. In changing the article we have omitted scientific words that would be confusing to non-science majors. This now updated article should address all the issues the banner at the top of the page is saying. Ecampe (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Message from Authors
As authors, we wanted to explain many different aspects of Diane Lipscombe's career and life as a neuroscientist. We had trouble with copyright information in order to get a picture of her on this page. --NCBiology (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
Hi!! When reading through this article it contains a lot of great information about Diane Lipscombe. It began with a good leading paragraph that gives a summary about what will be talked about throughout the article including what her primary focus is, where her career started, her research and ends with her dates serving as president in the Society for Neuroscience. Following the good article criteria: (1) I think that the article was well-written with no grammar/spelling mistakes and is laid out in a good way that is easy to follow. Everything is explained thoroughly enough or linked to a website where you can find more information on the topic. (2)Everything looks like it is cited properly with an appropriate amount of references. The citations used throughout the article were from reliable sources that provided more information on where the citation was from or more information on a topic. No original research or copyright was used. (3) There are many sections that talk about Diane's research which is good, but I feel like you could separate her education and research section. Have the sections be like Education, Research Focus, Current Research, Awards, and Contributions/boards, but don't have three just based on her research. Also for the Awards and committees/boards sections I feel like you use bullet points and just list a couple of the awards she has won with maybe a link to where people could go to find more information on her achievements. Same for the committees and boards it could be shortened or condensed down so it makes it easier to read (ex: list them with bullet points). Otherwise the information stated in the research sections are very broad and easy to follow along with. (4)This article did a good job of remaining neutral and not showing editorial bias in anyway. (5) I believe that the article is pretty stable as of right now. (6) Images could be added in the research section to give some visuals of what her focus is on and also just a picture of her so readers know what she looks like. The source I analyzed was #5, it is a secondary source that came off of PubMed that is a discussion about information presented elsewhere originally. It is used in the overall research focus section of the article to give further explanation on Calcium Channels/signaling. Besides a few minor adjustments I thought the article was written well and gave readers an easy understanding of Diane Lipscombe's life and contributions. Alau0624 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We took your advice and made separate sections for Education, Research Focus, Current Research, Award, and committees/boards section. It has a smoother more cohesive layout now because of that. We also took your advice and made her committees/boards section in bullet point format so it is easier to read. Lastly we added some visuals which really pulls the page together. We are having copyright issues with posting a photo of her but we added photos that pertain to her. Thank you for your suggestions and comments we appreciate it! BrittanyMU (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
Hello authors. Overall, I think your article is very well written and descriptive on the life of Diane Lipscombe. In my opinion, the lead paragraph was strong and gave all the essential information in her life, that was later developed throughout the rest of the article. I found the leading paragraph to give a good description of the type of research that will later be discussed in detail along with the awards that are also discussed later in the article. There were a few grammatical errors, such as: commas needing to be inserted into certain places and the rewording of a few sentences. Other than that, I thought the article was clear and could be followed by a general audience. 1. This article was well written with an appropriate amount of writing under each sub-category present on the article. There were links inserted throughout the article, which led to an explanation of the word that could confuse the general public that reads this article. 2. After reading the entire article, the article did not contain any original research, credit was given when necessary and the articles these ideas were taken from were cited correctly. Each sentence that was used from an article had the link at the end of the sentence and the article was cited at the end of the article too. When I checked the articles provided at the bottom of the article, I found that most of the sources were secondary sources provided from data bases that provided research that were all second-hand information in journals. Although most the cites were secondary sources, some of the cites need more information provided in order to verify the source at the bottom of the page. I did find that the first source that was the Brown school web page about Lipscombe was a primary source due to her writing detail about herself on it. She wrote in first person on her biography page therefore making that a firsthand account on herself. 3. All the authors stated the important information regarding Lipscombe and the research that she has done. The sub-categories provided on the article were broken up and were not overpowered with an excessive amount of detail. These sub-categories consisted of: education and research, overall research focus, current research, awards, and committees and boards. There was enough detail in each section to understand the facts presented, especially in research where one can understand the research Lipscombe has done without an overpowering amount of detail to it. 4. The article as a whole was not biased and remained neutral throughout the entire piece. One mentioned past and present awards, boards and committees, and research in a very neutral manner. 5. When I reviewed the entire article it seemed to have a flow to the writing. The article is very stable and I do not think there will be any complications in the article in the future. 6. Unfortunately, there are no images within this article. I found this image: https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/FamilyIntroductionForward?familyId=80 that you could use as a picture of a calcium channel in general and could be located in the overall research focus section. Also, if one could find a picture of Diane Lipscombe herself that would be helpful and could be inserted in the leading paragraph section. Overall, I thought the article had a great layout with a good amount of information in each section. The source I chose to review was secondary source #7. This source was used in the current research section to describe Lipscombe's research done in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS. The section discusses the use of fruit flies to distinguish the earlier stages of this disease. When one goes to the source itself, the source is very detailed and is a whole entire research paper about this topic Lipscombe studied. The authors of the Wikipedia article gave a general summary of the study and gave credit to the original work within the paragraph. Overall, the source was generally summarized in a way that a general audience could understand and follow. Great work on this article! --AMMarquette (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, they were very helpful!We proofread a little closer this time to eliminate grammatical errors and condense sentences so they are better understood. We checked about the Brown source and were reassured that it is ok to use since Brown checked that information before it was posted. We did add another Brown source that was secondary as well. We addressed the image issue by adding a couple different images that pertain to Dr. Lipscombe. Due to copyright issues we were not able to include an image of Dr. Lipscombe herself. Thank you for your helpful suggestions! BrittanyMU (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
Hi! While reading your article, overall, I thought it was well written and very informative. I learned a lot about Diane Lipscombe and her research. While going through wikipedias guidelines, for number one, I believe the article is layed out well and the sections are all clear and concise. I do think there are a few grammar issues with run-on sentences as well as the repetition of the word "she". In place of a few of these, you could use her last name or full name. For #2 of the guidelines, the article showed no original research. All research mentioned was cited and verifiable. For guideline #3, I do believe that all main topics are covered for this article page. There is a good amount of information about the neuroscientist herself as well as her research. All categories focused on its specific topic and its mostly organized, giving a better understanding to outside readers. I do think that you can shorten the committees and boards section of the article and combine it with her honors and rewards. I also think making a list or a table would help organize those two sections. However, I like how you guys broke down her research to an overall focus and what her current research is now. I also think that the explanations in the overall research section help readers who don't understand the topics well and it was well explained. For guideline #4, I do believe that the tone of this article is neutral. You guys dont give personal input into the article and I didn't feel like you were trying to sway the audience in one way or another. 5. I don't see big changes day to day, most comments are from MU students giving feedback. #6, there are no pictures in this article. But I think you guys could insert a basic picture on some of the research concepts she focuses on instead of searching for a picture of her. Overall, I do think that this page was written well. The information is very informative and its not confusing. I would work on a bit of the grammar and change up the organization of the honors and awards. The source I chose to review was source #6. This source is a secondary source that was published on ncbi. I can tell its a secondary source because the information comes from other cited sources. Lipscombe is also cited in the sources of this article. This was helpful to use because it gives insight on ca2+ channels and how it relates to pain relief which is a big part of the research. The section that this best goes with is the current research that Lipscombe is working on. You guys explained the important portions of the article well and gave organized insight on how N receptors relate to pain. I believe that the source was summarized in a way that an outside audience who didnt have experience in science could understand. I think it grabs the important information relayed from article 6 and conveys it well. -Dijanazen

Thank you for your suggestions! We took your advice and carefully proofread the page again fixing run-ons and grammatical errors. We shortened the committees and boards section to make it easier to read and more organized. We took your advice and added some pictures that are related to Dr. Lipscombes research. Due to copyright issues we were unable to add a picture of Dr. Lipscombe herself. Thank you for your feedback and suggestions! BrittanyMU (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Delrosemcp (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I thought the post was really well done. I agree with the previous commenter that the post does not require as much detail regarding her research and her awards; a brief summary would definitely suffice! Other than that, there are just a couple of grammar and punctuation errors I noted (ex- capitalizing Bachelors in Science). Adding some commas and breaking up some of the long sentences would really help clarify your article even further! Overall, I liked that you included a good summary of overall research focus and appreciated the variety of references you used. EllieM0703 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and thought it was written very well! I believe your introduction and education paragraphs were well done. I agree with the other reviewers that the areas that need work are the research sections. I think both sections were still great, however some of the details explaining the CaVs are not necessary. I think it would help if you made it clear how her research overall reflects the goals of her studies, and weeded out some of the details. Besides that, really good job! LCneurobiology (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello, This was very informative and caught my eye when I was reading about ALS. I have a close family friend that suffers from ALS so it was interesting to read about someone working in that field. I agree with the other reviewers in that some of the sections in this article were very specific. I viewed it as informative for individuals knowledgeable in the field of information, but Wikipedia is intended to be an Encyclopedia, therefore, I feel providing less information in these sections may be more helpful. I noted in the talk page, the difficulty of obtaining a head shot of the scientist and thank you for being proactive in that sense! This has a lot of information and I cannot wait to dive deeper into this page! - Owen.patrick4 (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hi! One addition that could enhance the article is listing what Lipscombe did/studied/researched at each individual university which was listed in the education and research section of the article. Additionally, I think that the overall research focus section could be re-written in a more consistent manner which might make it easier to read for someone who does not have a ton of background in biology; the first paragraph has a lot of long sentences, whereas the second has shorter, choppier sentences. Also, the second paragraph reads more as an informational paragraph about the calcium channels. I think it might be a more relevant if you lead off with what contributions Lipscombe made in discovering the mutations, then maybe link to some other wikipedia pages or external links which could give more insight into the calcium channels themselves (even link to one of her papers!). One last addition— I think an infobox at the top of the article would give a great short bio on who Lipscombe is and what she is all about.Muneuro (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello! As I read through the article I thought it was really well laid out and easy to follow. The way things were worded made it pretty easy to read and follow, although it still maybe confusing to someone with no scientific background. The article flowed very well and had a good introduction to who Diane Lipscombe is and what was talked about in the rest of the article. I did notice a couple long sentences that were a little difficult to read and maybe just by making those sentences into two or shortening them would help a reader follow along even better. Other than that I think everything looked great. MUscience1998 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)