Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2015)

Location of Wikipedia Article Draft
User:7753spoom/sandbox/Sulfatide has the sulfatide page

User:Rayschneider0/sandbox has the Holmes tremor page

User:1415jacobsx/sandbox has the Calyx of Held page. User:Medstudentleigh/Sigma-2_Receptor is the Sigma-2 Receptor page. User:Jamesbond35/sandbox is the Kisspeptin page. User:Mprosser17/sandbox has the Connexon page. User:ShieldsMU/sandbox has the myelinogenesis page. User:6487heffroa/sandbox has the pre-botzinger complex page. User:Mychm52/sandbox has the Bonnet-Dechaume-Blanc Syndrome page. User:Othrowt/sandbox has the Analeptic page. User:KateSage/sandbox has the Leukodystrophy page. User:Bscheidt/sandbox has the Hypofrontality page. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bscheidt/sandbox Semaj311 (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) User:LaurenNicole7911/sandbox has the Neuroferritinopathy page. User:AAPhysiology/sandbox has the dendrodendritic synapse page. User:Marq808/sandbox has the Lymphocytic Pleocytosis page.

User:Luisq15/sandbox has the Neuronal Binding page

Talk pages on wikipedia
Hi folks,

I've seen some of the reviews the class has posted on articles like Calyx of Held and Connexon. Each of the reviews is useful--precisely the kind of critical attention that many Wikipedia articles need. Normally, Wikipedia articles don't see this volume of interest and editors have adopted certain talk page habits and norms to try and keep discussion together. Talk:Black mamba contains about six months of discussion between disparate editors, but each section is grouped by content. If I'm reading the talk page and I see a section labeled ""Elephant-killing" myth?" I can tell immediately what's likely to be in that section. This means if I was just about to post a similar question, I can read there and see if I can add my comments to the same thread first. If the section is titled "Secondary review", I now have to read the contents in order to see if my complaints might be duplicated and I'm more likely to assume they haven't and post anyway.

Remember that the talk page isn't just for collaborating now. If you identify 10 problems with a page and fix 8, that's still pretty successful. What would be even better would be letting future editors know what remains to be done. One way to do this is to create a new section with a bulleted list of issues to be fixed. Then you or any other editor could work on resolving those issues and check them off (mentally but also hopefully by replying in the talk page). Something like this

Looks like:


 * collaborative review


 * A comment on sourcing, hopefully specifying the paragraph, claim or source
 * A comment on tone or diction, specifying a particular line
 * A suggested source or idea
 * etc.

You may also break the review into individual sections, as that is useful for some articles. It's up to you!

You can reply to each comment if it has been completed if you like (as you can see here, with or without fancy looking checkboxes). this will help you make sense of how much work you think needs to be done and can help when collaborating on fixing problems. It may take a bit of work to get going, but you've done the hard part already: identifying the issues! Creating a list like this works best as a team effort. If each person adds their own comments to an individual list (taking care to not add duplicates) it can go pretty quickly.

Once you've put together a list, you may want to archive the old sections so they can still be read easily but don't take up the talk page. Your critique can always be found in the talk page history; e.g. this review by will stay in the history at that link even if the page is archived.

You don't need to do this for the articles where you have left reviews, but the editors working on those articles may be a bit less confused at the recent attention. Although the Black Mamba talk page has two archives, they are mostly for old discussions--most talk page don't see this much volume! And I think you'll find it eases the task of collaborating on large articles. Please let me know if you need a few examples of lists like this or have any questions (including how to start!). Thanks. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)