User talk:Miralex0209/Dominick P. Purpura

Primary Review
Hello, I think you did a really great job with the article so far. 1. Well-written: all of your content is comprehendible and it is simplistic. However, there are several errors with grammar and punctuation. I think a quick edit will really improve sentence fluency. Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to start with a lead paragraph. You might want to also consider adding more categories to your page, such as: education, awards, research, etc. 2. Verifiable with no original research: The sources are cited correctly and they are in the correct spot on the page. The authors used reliable sources, but I think it would be beneficial to include a wider variety of sources. The article does not include original research, but it also includes little to no information about the research that he did. The article does include plagiarism because there are no citations for the whole first paragraph. 3. Broad in its coverage: The article does address some of the necessary coverage, but I believe that it could include more detail. The authors included some unnecessary information. For example, I do not think they needed that much information on people he worked with; whereas, it would be beneficial to incorporate the people who helped with major contributions for his research. 4. Neutral: I think there are words and sentences that are biased. I would recommend using words and sentences that appreciate him for his achievements without having a bias towards him as a scientist and person. 6. Illustrated: The photo of him is very nice. It is more appealing to viewers when they can view a picture of the person being discussed. The picture is relevant, and everything seems to be cited correctly. I reviewed citation 3. This is not a secondary source, and it is not properly referenced in the in-text citation. This citation is used after dates, and it follows information that says "he authored or coauthored over 200 scientific articles." However, I do not see this information in the source. I think the article could use a little bit of work. I would recommend including information about his death and his time as the president of the society for neuroscience. But other than that, I believe that you have a very great start. --Mdomin-mu (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Nice article! I think that the information that you conveyed gives the reader a general sense of Dr. Purpura's position in and contributions to the neuroscience community and many of the links you employed enable the reader to dive deeper if they so choose. I agree with many of the other reviewers - a small introductory paragraph detailing Dr. Purpura's personal life (even if it is just birthdate, place of birth, etc.) would be beneficial. It is great that you were able to add a photo to the page, too. Although a minor suggestion, if an intro paragraph were to be added, perhaps moving the "connections" section to the latter part of the article might help with the flow. Also, while this article uses links well - check to see if some of Dr. Purpura's colleagues have Wiki pages as it would be good to link those individuals for the reader. Best, BISCquick (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I liked your addition of a picture. I think that you should include a lead paragraph, and I also noticed a couple of typos in the last two sentences of the article that could be fixed. Kennedy-MU (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I think its interesting that he studied the pharmacological side to neuroscience, as I don’t think its very popular. It would have been interesting if you went more in depth into his research and explain what he studied/discovered exactly instead of just saying broadly that he studied the uses of pharmacological devices and that his methods were adopted from medical schools, etc. --Alisand16 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Alisand16

Secondary Review
Include information in how he revolutionized how medical education was taught. Expand more on what were his accomplishments during his career, and consider adding a section about awards and accolades. Also, there is a typo in the last sentence which include an extraneous period right before the "or". KevinKicmal (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
This article did not contain a introductory paragraph. Although not all pages do, this page was written for a project and would have benefitted from having mentioned that he was the president of the Society for Neuroscience at a specific time. However, the fact that he was the president of SfN was never mention, which was an important part of Dr. Purpura's career and was worth mentioning. 1. Well written - a few run on sentences and shouldn't include parethases in the article. This article had a lot of interesting information included about his career, and I like that some quotes were added to emphasize his amazing career. 2. Verifiable with no original research - there were no research or review articles cited in this article. The articles that were cited were 2 obituaries and a brief site about his contributions to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Although these are good sources of information, these authors almost entirely missed mentioning the research Dr. Purpura conducted. 3. Broad in coverage - there is little to no mention of the research Dr. Purpura conducted. This article was very heavy on his career, mentioning where he went to school, where he taught, and other researchers he worked with. Although this is important information, he was a neuroscientist, and he spent his life doing research, which should have been mentioned more. These authors also did not mention anything about his early life. This article was not very broad in the information provided. Also confused how we was able to be writing papers while still at Harvard Medical school, should have highlighted that he was doing research, and what the research was even on that was being published so rapidly, while in medical school. 4. Neutral - Used terms like groundbreaking, lit the way for future neuroscientists, etc. Although Dr. Purpura seemed like a very interesting neuroscientist, this article seems to be leaning a little too much in his favor. 5. Stable - This article seems very stable, definitely doesn't seem like there is an edit war going on when looking at the revision history page. 6. Illustrated - There was only one image included. It appears to be sourced properly. This article could have benefitted from an image that related to the research he did or even an image with a colleague, since that was a section in the article that was heavily highlighted. I reviewed citation 2. This was not a secondary source, but these authors did not include any secondary sources in their 3 sources cited. Dr. Purpura is known for his work in the involvement of strutural abnormalities of nerve cells in the brain in mental retardation. The authors did not mention this area of research, but they did mention his work on brain waves, although they didn't not that the research was related to epilepsy. There are plenty of review articles, since Dr. Purpura and his colleagues published so many papers, so these authors should have highlighted his research more.

Overall, this article could use a little work through the broadening of what was covered, including expanding on his research, including something about his early life, and mentioning that he was president of SfN. However, this article was overall well-written, easy to read, and was very interesting. 8396propsok (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review
This article is missing a few essential sections including an introductory summary, specific research, and awards and honors. Some of these details were mentioned; however, they get lost in the other paragraphs. 1. The writing is good, there are a few spelling and grammatical errors, but they are easy fixes. The information given with only two paragraphs condenses too much information into one section, I’d recommend adding more sections to separate information so it can be more detailed and spread out. 2. This article cites 3 sources, including Dr. Purpura’s obituary, which is good for personal background, but there are no articles or citations of Dr. Purpura’s research. There is no evidence of copyright violation or plagiarism. There are no citations in paragraph one regarding his relationships throughout his career, these should be added. 3. There is a large amount of information on the contacts that Dr. Purpura made throughout his career, but the article is lacking any information on specific research he participated in. The article contains a little too much in the first connections section; however, the history and background section is well written and covers a balanced amount of information. 4. The article is written in a mostly neutral tone without bias, but there are some word choices such as “Purpura lit the way for future neuroscientists”, which could be interpreted as a minor bias in his favor. 5. This article is stable. 6. There is only one image on the page and it is a headshot of Dr. Purpura and appears to be properly cited. The authors could have benefitted from adding more images related to his medical education methods and significant research. They could also add images of the institutions he attended. I reviewed the first citation, Dr. Purpura’s obituary. Although there are some biases regarding Dr. Purpura’s personality, this can be considered a secondary source in regards to his research and awards. The source is only used to discuss Purpura’s education which is accurately represented in the cited article. The citation seems incorrect since it begins with an email address, but I do not know for sure. Overall, this article has a good foundation to build off of but it requires separation of information and more detailed research on his professional work and awards with proper citations. (Lvmubio (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC))

Secondary Review
As mentioned in the other comments I think this article lacks detail and has a couple of typos throughout. Expand more on his research and findings in epilepsy and neurophysiology. Also you can add details about his early life, like where he grew up and his birthdate and the date he passed. You can also add more information about any awards and notable achievements. Overall, this is a good start but it just needs more information. GOC2020 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello! I liked how it talked about the different connections that was built throughout his career, how they were made, and also how they affected him as an individual. I also liked that you added a picture of him. I would maybe add any awards that he might have received throughout his work. I would also maybe add in some examples of the published papers that he had worked on, along with adding an introductory paragraph about just him as an individual.