Talk:Moses Chao

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): Gslorance, HannahPNeuro, SihamS15, AKBiology. Peer reviewers: 7826macfarm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Important
We greatly appreciate your reviews and edits thus far. This page is a group project that ends on the April 25th, 2020. Please refrain from making direct edits to the page until after this date, but feel free to leave suggestions and edits in the talk section.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahPNeuro (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello, really good article. I find that the information provided tells a good introduction on Dr. Chao's life and work in neuroscience. I was wondering if there was any more information on the types of honors and awards that Dr. Chao achieved in his life and career. Maybe you could list dates if there are some as a little detail and so other people can piece together his life more chronologically. This was well put together, and I think that the pictures you added were a great touch. Nice job.Ecampe (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hi there, I've read your article and I don't think there is much I can suggest adding or changing since it is very well put together and covers all the bases. I really enjoyed the details of what Dr. Chao did when he was the president of the Society of Neuroscience, details like that can be difficult to find! Overall, I'm very impressed with your article! Thank you for listening! Lvmubio (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello! I really enjoyed the article. It was very straight to the point, there wasn't any unnecessary information. The article would be very easy to read if someone who didn't have any background knowledge of science were to read the article. I do think that it was a bit short. You could have gone into a bit more detail with his research. However, I do understand that it was difficult to find more information on Dr. Chao, as stated elsewhere on the talk page. Overall, good work! HBGoggans (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Nice article! You covered what needed to very well, leaving no gaps in what should be said about Moses Chao. I enjoyed the extra information you gave to his faculty positions and early life. If anything, I would change how much you say currently throughout the paper. This page might not be edited as thoroughly as you have every year. I would suggest changing it to "as of 2019" or "in 2020" depending on the sources. Good work. Abbey-MU (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Great article! I liked the extra details you included about his early life, especially that little detail about the importance of his name and his goals as president of SfN; those details are really great additions. I would dive more into his science, as nerve growth factor and synaptic plasticity are well-defined through Dr. Chao's and other's research. Otherwise, interesting article. 8396propsok (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Some Challenges
Hi reviewers! A challenge faced overall was that the other authors and I just couldn't really find a plethora of information on Dr. Chao. We tried the best we could to convey the information we had in an articulate and understandable way.

Secondary Review
Very nicely written article! It seemed to cover all aspects of Moses’ life which I thought was great. I personally would have expanded on his research section since it seems like he is a very accomplished neuroscientist. I also might have added a colleague's section so we can see what specifically he has been working on and with what other scientists. BrittanyMU (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
First off I want to acknowledge that I thought the article was very well written. It was the perfect balance of scientific knowledge but easy to understand for readers that do not have that prior knowledge. The layout was nice and the tone of the article was informative as well as al grammar correct.

Through the writing the research looks adequate. I noticed that the authors commented that it was extremely hard to find information so keeping that in mind, I believe that the research that was found does give a holistic view into what he accomplished. The sources that were cited are secondary sources so that is good, and all source direct you to the exact page where I could see the information on the Wikipedia page and the published article.

The article hovers over the most important points of his life and accomplishments which is a great for the article, it allows the reader not to be sucked into the smaller details but learn the important information. My only complaint is that there is not a lot of information on his actual research to give the reader a deeper understanding, but I do know the challenges that the authors were faced with.

I also thought the pictured were a good touch and added personality to the page as well as a very neutral and stable tone.

I chose to look further into the article “Exercise promotes the expression of brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) through the action of the ketone body β-hydroxybutyrate.” It is a secondary source, meets all the requirements given from Wikipedia. The article does not have a lot with Chao’s research but does state some findings between exercise and the brain. This was also seen in the Wiki article itself.

youngn212 22:51, 14 April 2020

Primary Review
The article is concise and easy to read. The authors use of photos brought the entire page together. They were used to better illustrate the research Chao does and were titled appropriately. No spelling or grammatical errors were noted. The article did an excellent job of providing adequate information on their scientists background including childhood, education, and positions and awards. However, the article appeared to lack information and sources that provided a deeper understanding of their scientists research. With that being said, I understand that the authors stated they had trouble finding this information. This did make evaluating the sources and identifying proper secondary sources more challenging while completing this review. Again, I understand this may have been from difficulty finding information that directly showed his research and experiments. The source I chose to evaluate can be found under references number 4, and is titled Neurotrophins and their receptors: A convergence point for many signalling pathways. This source appears to be a primary source. The authors cited and used information from this source appropriately. I was unable to access the entire article, so I am not sure if there was more accessible information they could have included. I believe the authors did a wonderful job given the challenges they faced when it came to finding information on their scientist. --AlyssaSNeuro (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I really liked the way you set up the article, especially with all the info about his early life and faculty. One suggestion that I have is to add more information about his research, especially about the plasticity in synapses. Another suggestion that I have is to either move one of the pictures from the right to the left or remove it since it feels that it is way too packed on the right side of the article. Overall really good job. Zitro2605 (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Author's Response
Overall, the commentary and suggestions throughout were good, and the authors will try to implement them into the article as best as possible. Switching up the language use, potentially adding a colleague’s section, and potentially delving more into his research are all things we as authors can work on to improve the piece. Luckily according to the reviews, the article looked adequate, conveyed well, as was easy to read, even for those without a science background.

The main area for improvement suggested is expanding the Research section. Although the authors had difficulties gathering information regarding Dr. Chao’s research, we can look even further to find some new information and things to expand on.

Primary Review
Hi authors! I think this article was well done and I found only a few small areas that could use improvement. The article was well written and the language is simple enough for anyone to be able to read and understand it. There's also plenty of links to the more complex topics for those who want to learn more, which is great! There was no original research and the tone remained neutral. Images were used very well throughout the article. I think the research section could have gone a little more in-depth, but sources could be hard to find so I understand why it may be hard to add more detail. There's a couple small details I noticed that I think could be updated. In the Early Life section, you mention the "country Hong Kong", but the Wikipedia page for Hong Kong that you linked says it's a city/special administrative region. That could be clarified in your article. I also noticed that you referenced the Society of Neuroscience, but linked to the page for the Society for Neuroscience. I'm assuming you meant the Society for Neuroscience and this was just a typo! I looked at reference number 7, the New York Times article interviewing Dr. Chao. I think you cited this source appropriately; however, I'm not sure if it's a good secondary source. The article is just summarizing an interview with Dr. Chao, not bringing together multiple sources and analyzing them all as a literary review would. I would suggest revisiting this source and seeing if you could find something stronger to cite instead. Overall, this article was fairly well done! I think it could use some small tweaks and maybe a little more digging for sources on Dr. Chao's research, if you can find them. Otherwise, it was easy to read and well put together. Good job! Laurenbaylor (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
Hello. Overall I think the article is well written, unbiased, and concise without any mistakes. In regards to research, all sources are secondary sources. However, make sure you all are citing your sources when needed. I like your explanation of where Moses' name came from, but there is no citation from where that info was obtained. I like the captioning of the photos saying how they related to Chao, though I think the last photo about synapses is unnecessary. Since Chao is still teaching, you might be able to find his university email and send a message asking for a photo for the page.

The source I chose to look further into is the one called "The New York Times: How Exercise Acts as ‘Miracle-Gro’ for the Brain." The article says BNDF is "known for enhancing memory and the growth of nerve cells," which is very similar to what you cited. You also cited the actual study. Maybe it would be best to omit this source and just use info from the peer-reviewed study, as this source is paraphrasing the New York times which is just analyzing the original study. 7826macfarm (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)