Talk:Stephen Heinemann

=Class Page=

Untitled
This is part of a class assignment that ends on April 25th. Therefore, while we would appreciate comments or editing suggestions, it would be great if other editors can hold off on making major edits before April 25th so that we have time to complete our edits. Thank you for your interest in improving our page! Abbey-MU (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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): Zitro2605, Abbey-MU, Mdomin-mu, MUscience1998. Peer reviewers: 7826macfarm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review
To begin, this article provides a good medium of information - it is just detailed enough and allows the reader to look further into the subject and relevant subjects if they so choose. It is mostly well-written and easily understood. The tone is appropriate and the style is informative. THe article is structured in a way that increases accessibility to the information provided (sections that detail similar concepts enable the reader to easily find what they may be looking for). I think that some proof reading would help to smooth out some minor obstructions to the article's flow, but otherwise the article is written in a concise and informative manner. With Heinemann's weighty discoveries there is probably a lot of dense language to unpack - this article maximizes the understanding of the every-day reader with minimal technical language. There are one or two instances where a slight clarification or link might be beneficial to the reader, for example, when they article discusses his work at MIT, it might be beneficial to link or briefly explain phage lambda repressor synthesis. This page has achieved a broad scope. It includes information about the individual as a person and as a scientist. I found the information on his early life most fascinating; noting the circumstances and events that influenced the career choice of Heinemann are crucial to documenting Heinemann's life in a wholistic way. The tone and style of this article do not present Heinemann in a biased way - the writing is clear, informative, and neutral. I evaluated source 7, "Kainate receptors coming of age: milestones of two decades of research", and it qualifies as a secondary source. In this publication, the authors review the important findings regarding Kainate receptors within a span of twenty years. Heinemann is not involved in the review, however; his research is cited by the authors and contributes to their review. The use of this article is most appropriate considering Heinemann's momentous contributions to this field of research. The authors of Heinemann's article utilize this source accurately. The source is to note one of Heinemann's early contributions to the study of glutamate receptors and the resounding effect his contribution had on future research in this area. The source is also telling of Heinemann's position as a pioneer in the field of neuroscience - perhaps it can be used as a citation in the beginning of the article (where the article notes that he was an early researcher in the field). A photograph would be a beneficial addition to this article (although it is understandable that they can be hard to find). Perhaps make a note on the article's talk page to inform others that a photograph is needed - other individuals on Wikipedia may have one to share. Cosmetically this article also looks great - it is easy to navigate and there is plenty of information available "at a glance" from the infobox. Overall, this article provides the reader with an encompassing view of Heinemann as a person and a scientist through concise writing and accurate use of sources. The article also allows the reader to delve deeper into relevant subjects through links and notable publications. So far, so good - well done. Best, BISCquick (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for the review! We appreciate the comments and critiques. I proofread the article, and I fixed a few grammatical errors. We also added a hyperlink for "phage lambda receptor synthesis." We added a photo of the Salk Institute. Thanks again! --Mdomin-mu (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review of Article
This article is well written. By that I mean that the flow and wording is extremely manageable to follow and concisely understand. The article does not delve to deep into technical jargon that is hard to define, and which would make the article hard to follow and understand. Additionally, the writing is free of an overabundance of grammatical mistakes that would disrupt its intellectual integrity. In terms of the included research, I found all claims regarding personal information, professional impacts, and scientific contributions to be adequately cited and verifiable, despite one example to be discussed later. However, I do believe that the article could be significantly broadened in its analysis of Stephen Heinemann’s research and scientific contributions. Personally, I was left wanting more from the research section and in looking through your sources, there was a plethora of information you could have included to help support and add a sense of gravity to the discovery he helped make. For example, the discovery of NMDAR and AMPAR structures and functions have had huge implications on the progression of neuroscience as a field of study and the authors of this article had the information in their sources to help tease out points like this a bit more, while still remaining understandable to a nonscientific audience. What are the significant implications of Heinemann’s finding? What practical and clinical implication do the findings hold? How can lay people relate to his findings? Try to explore and incorporate these questions. In terms of neutrality, the authors did a fantastic job is stating the facts surrounding Stephen Heinemann without including any underlying bias. Finally, the article needs some color. As it is the page is looks somewhat daunting and uninviting. Adding some imagine possibly of the individual himself or landscape of where he grew up or went to school would help liven up the page and add context to the information you are presenting. Additionally, illustration is one of the criteria to a good Wikipedia article.

In terms of reviewing one of your sources I choose to look at source 6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Heinemann#cite_note-6 ) which outlines Heinemann’s work on implicating glutamate receptors with both learning and unlearning of information. First, I can confirm that this article is a secondary source in medicine which reviews the journal paper “mGluR5 Has a Critical Role in Inhibitory Learning.” As presented in the Wikipedia article, this source appears to implicate NMDA receptors in the process of both learning and unlearning; however, this source specifically only focuses on mGluR5 receptors as implicated in the process of unlearning information and actually never even mentions NMDAR. So first and foremost the information presented does not match up and this section needs to be reworked for accuracy and completion. Make sure to report the information accurately and if the article needs to be lengthened to include the distinction in function between NMDAR and mGluR5 it should be done so that accurate information is being published.

Furthermore, I think this article included some very important examples that help explain what the authors mean by “learning and unlearning.” Included are experiments performed in rodents that effectively outline how dysfunction or absence of the mGluR5 receptors significantly affect functional tasks involving unlearning of information (and learning for that matter) which may be more relatable and easier to imagine for a nonscientific audience.

Finally, this source ends by outlining possible implications of the findings with treatment and understanding of PTSD. This last point was one of the main driving forces for the researchers to be interested in studying the receptor activity. Furthermore, this implication influences all of society not just the scientific community and thus helps highlight the impact this scientist actually has had through his work. One major thing to remember is to incorporate scientific contributions into a societal context because ultimately it is this context in which new knowledge will be applied. MUBISC-AR (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that excellent review! We have added to the research overview because I agree that we did not highlight the extensive contribution Heinemann had to neuroscience enough. I also expanded upon the differences in metabotropic and ionotropic glutamate receptors and clarified that the metabotropic is what has implications in learning/unlearning as shown by Heinemann. Unfortunately we do not have permission to use Heinemann's portrait, but I will add a logo for his education to spice up the page. Once again thank you for your contribution Abbey-MU (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary ReviewBNunez13 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I like how you boxed the notable publications and have a summary box of his life at the top right.

Secondary Review
Overall, this article does a really good job of discussing his research in a way that would be easy to understand for a nonscientific audience. I think that your lead paragraph is lacking information. You could possible add in a brief overview of where he went to school and his main honors, including that he was a president for the Society for Neuroscience.

Kennedy-MU (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary review
Your article is well written and has a nice flow to it. Each subtopic you had mention does not include any biases towards Heinemann, which is great! If his research primarily focused on acetylcholine and glutamate receptors, I think his research on acetylcholine should be included too, since "Glutamate receptors" were only mentioned in the article. And I think more could be written detailing or summarizing further of past research he had done. Your source "1" I can confirm is a secondary source. This source does summarize Heinemann's contributions and works in the neuroscience community. For your source "8", is another good secondary source, but I think a better source could be found to support is findings on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. I think the source only does a good job of summarizing the research. I think this source needs detail about the clinical aspects of the research itself. Pictures could be included too if you haven't done so yet.

Overall everything seems great and that you meet most of the requirements. I think more needs to be written about his research to get the point across. 8421nguyena (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your review! We appreciate the constructive criticism. We did look over the research portion of the article and changed a few things. A picture was also inserted into the article for the education portion. MUscience1998 (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall, I thought this was a well-written article. The text was clear and grammatically/syntactically correct. I believe that they had appropriate sections that made sense and proceeded logically throughout the article. The article appears verifiable, and the authors gave adequate description to their various sections. I really appreciated the thorough explanation on Heinemann’s research. As a whole, the article was structured sensibly and featured no glaring errors in comprehension, credibility, or stability.

I believe some work can be done on the “broad in its coverage” criteria. The text seems narrative, rather than fact-based and objective. Phrase choices like, “Ever since he was a kid, and “encouraged his interest in science” take away from the professional tone and appear more like the authors are telling a story rather than stating objective fact. Removing these phrases and rewording sections of the article may help with this. In addition, some of the material goes into unnecessary detail and strays from the main topic (ex- “His uncle, who was a physicist, gave him his first chemistry set”). This reduction in objectivity also affects the neutrality of the article and makes it feels more like an opinion piece, so rewording would definitely improve this aspect, as well. No pictures or media were used, so it also does not fill the “illustrated” criteria.

For this review, I chose to look at Reference 2. There were only three sentences that directly cited Reference 2, despite the fact that there was a lot of overlap amongst the citations. The page that is linked to this reference states, “earned his undergraduate degree from Caltech in 1962 and a PhD in biochemistry under advisor Matt Meselson at Harvard in 1967,” which is written almost exactly the same in the paper, but is not cited at all. I think more material from this page - specifically the section on glutamate receptors - could have been used in your article to provide further detail on Heinemann’s work. More material than just three sentences can be pulled from this reference, but the sentences that were used were definitely useful in the article. EllieM0703 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the review. I did some changes in the early life and education sections based on your feedback. I did some rewording in the last sentence of the early life section and deleted the first sentence of the education section that mentioned his uncle. I also added a citation regarding Matt Meselson's mentorship. I didn't add more information about glutamate since we believe that adding more information would have an unbalance for the rest of Heinemann's research and we also just wanted to include general information about his research so it isn't too hard understand for non-science readers. Once again thank you for your review Zitro2605 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall, I think this is a nice article. I agree with previous commenters that the writing is done well for a nonscientific audience while also giving sufficient information about his contributions to the scientific field. I did get a bit confused in the “Education” section because you mentioned the Salk Institute, and my impression was that he was a professor there and not a student. Perhaps this section could be renamed to reflect this – “institutions” or “career” perhaps? I also agree that a bit more could be added to the lead paragraph, even if it seems repetitive with the info panel. I think it could mention glutamate and acetylcholine, not just “neurotransmitters,” since I think most people with a small knowledge of neuroscience would recognize the importance of these two by name. I also really appreciated how you split the research section into subsections—it made it easier to follow. Do you think there’s a way you could get a picture of him? I’d think this should be somewhat easy since he is dead, although I know we had a hard time getting permission for a picture for our neuroscientist, so I'm not sure. Nice job!

Cschmitz253 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This page has been well written overall. The text can be easily understood by those who are not in the scientific field. Nonetheless, I would recommend adding images. There could be one in the research section showing the glutamate receptors or you could even add images of the methods that he used. SihamS15 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)SihamS15

Secondary Review
Well written article overall. I would recommend adding a legacy section and include anyone that he has been mentored by/mentored. I would also consider adding applicable images. If you could find a photo of him that would add a nice touch. If not, perhaps some photos in the research section to better illustrate the different receptors involved in his research. --AlyssaSNeuro (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
You have a very strong and well written article so far! The introduction is concise but includes the most important information about Heinemann's life and research. The article is well-organized and easy to read, especially in the research section. One suggestion that could improve the organization further is to switch the format of the Awards section and the Notable Publications section, so that the awards are in a table format (just makes it easier to read. The Notable Publications section could benefit from having additional information about the works that you list and a paragraph format might be a better way to go about that, though it is helpful that you have the PMIDs and DOIs linked. I would be wary of using the phrase, "Ever since he was a kid...", since this is difficult to verify. Aside from this wording, you do well to appropriately utilize your sources and not stretch the information they provide. You provide a good, neutral perspective to his research and accurately portray their importance. Great use of the summary box, though some more media might be beneficial to the eyes. I understand that getting a picture of the individual might be difficult, but pictures of the various glutamate receptors and their structures would be very relevant to the article. --TristanAB (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I think your article is well-written with attention to detail and attempting to remain neutral. I think that one addition that you could make to your page which would enhance the scientific contributions that Heinemann has made is through not only listing his notable works but taking the time to highlight what was significant about each individual one. Additionally, if in the Education section, you could add what he did at all of the different universities he was present at, I think that would enhance the article even more (it was done for some but not all of the sources). Great job otherwise! Muneuro (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello. I liked that the sections under "research" were easy to understand and to the point. However in the section under "education" you all reference "phage lambda repressor synthesis." Maybe you could explain a little more what this is and how it relates to transcription without going into all the fine details so it is easy for people to understand what this means. 7826macfarm (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)