Talk:Anne B. Young

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): GOC2020, Kennedy-MU, Muneuro, Cschmitz253.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note to Contributors

We greatly appreciate any improvements and edits to better this article, but we would ask you to please refrain from making major edits to the page until after the 25th of April, 2020; this page is part of a class project. Please feel free to leave suggestions and reviews in the talk section, and thank you!Muneuro (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Muneuro, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you find your time here productive and useful. The great part of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative encyclopedia. The worst part of Wikipedia (sometimes) is that it's a collaborative encyclopedia. This means that all editors have a right to improve articles. There's no way to "freeze" an article until after 25 April. So as you make changes other editors might come along and change those changes. Often times it will be to help improve them - like the recent edits to add doi to the citations. This is part and process of editing here. I'm sure Elysia (Wiki Ed) can explain more if you have questions about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thank you so much, we as a class are excited to be contributing our research on such a collaborative platform. We are elated to receive constructive input from other editors, as that is what makes Wikipedia such a current and evolving platform. Again, we are editing for a class project (part of WikiEdu, as you are familiar with the initiative), and we kindly ask others to include any improvements they might have to the talk section until April 25th. Of course, we cannot stop anyone (as you said, this is a collaborative platform) from editing the page; the request was more out of hope for courtesy as we try to put out the best article possible of Anne B. Young. Thank you for your input! Muneuro (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Muneuro editing with other Wikipedians is part of the fun of a classroom assignment! I'm Elysia, the Wiki Education staffer assigned to your class. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit--students, volunteers, retirees, average people...anyone! You and your instructor shouldn't worry about the contributions of other Wikipedians. In fact, more experienced editors are usually very helpful for students, and can identify formatting and style issues that students are unaware of. You and your instructor can use the authorship highlighting feature of the Dashboard to precisely identify which edits to an article were student edits vs. all other edits. I hope that helps. And thanks for the ping Barkeep49. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Authors, overall great job! My suggestions are written below:

1. Style of Writing. The article was very well written overall. I do think that the early life and education section could flow a little better. Implementing more information maybe from her bibliography (SFN) or other sources could help with this. The overall syntax of this area could use a little work, as it jumps around pretty abruptly. For example, "She completed her undergraduate studies in chemistry, with minors in art history and philosophy, at Vassar College and worked in a laboratory, developing an interest in biochemistry," could be written in more than one sentence. Example: "Young completed her undergraduate studies in chemistry, with minors in both art history and philosophy. While studying at Vassar, Young working in a laboratory as an undergraduate assistant. This experience led her to have an interest in biochemistry and continue of her education in the field." Also, I noticed there was not a separate section for the undergraduate degree, it was just mentioned in early life and a little in the Hopkins section of education. Many times, this is extremely important in the development of a scientist. I think a separate section with this information (majors, minors, and area of research/position title in undergraduate lab), is important and gives more clarity on her overall development as a scientist. I would also check for any published papers during her time as an undergrad, this would be important to mention and would give you a strong idea on what she studied.

2. References. Article contains few primary sources, which is not allowed according to Wikipedia guidelines. Most are correct as secondary or tertiary sources and are cited according to guidelines. I reviewed source #3, which was an article written in Harvard Magazine. It was cited many times throughout the article, and the information was correct and correctly cited in the article in all that I checked.

3. Broad in Coverage. As Young has made significant contributions in science, I believe her article should be long and reflective of her pathway to get to where she is. I also believe it should definitely include her achievements and awards throughout, as this might motivate young scientists to follow in her path. Following that, I think the article was a good length and the authors did a good job of creating subcategories to organize it well (minus undergraduate education). The article stayed focused around her (with the incorporation of her early husband), and created a good picture on who she is and what she has done for patients who suffer from these movement disorders.

4. Neutrality. I believe this article was very neutral. I did not find any sentences/sections that I saw to be written with a bias viewpoint.

5. Illustrations. I do believe that images should be added in many sections of the article. Especially regarding her research. Many people without a science background can get easily lost when diving into these topics, so images might help keep the reader interested.

HannahPNeuro (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your feedback! To address your first point about style of writing, we shortened up some of the paragraphs in the Early and Personal Life section and split up some longer sentences to try to make the writing flow better overall. We could only find one paper published with her as an author during her undergraduate years, but we couldn’t find much else. Nonetheless, we added a section about her undergraduate career for later reviewers to potentially improve. We decided to focus the bulk of the article on her time in medical school and post graduate education because we felt that this is when her most notable work was done. In terms of the usage of primary sources, we changed some information in some sections to reflect information from reviews rather than primary sources. Other areas have been checked with the Wikipedia editor to ensure that the primary source is used properly to report research performed and results. We are also working to add images that reflect the information in the research section. Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello Authors, After reviewing the article I noticed a couple of areas for improvement. The first was the last sentence of the lead paragraph. I really like the fact about her being the president of both the Society for Neuroscience and the American Neurological Association but the sentence felt "tacked on". I think if you added some kind of transition that leads into that cool fact it may sound smoother. The second correction was similar and was at the end of Early and Personal Life. In the second to last sentence, the second half about her continuing to run the neurology department feels unnecessary. The last sentence also feels tacked on like in the previous paragraph. I like the information, I just think that it should be worded differently. Overall, nice everyone! ~Sawyer Mentink

Thank you for your feedback! We reworked the wording of both of these areas in order to make these sections flow better. Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to start by saying that I thought the article was very well written and concise with the information. I especially liked how the authors organized the article i thought it helped to ease the flow of the article and make it more clear. I also thought it was a smart touch to add a brief summary of her published papers into the article itself.

youngn212 22:51, 14 April 2020

Thank you for your feedback! Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This article does a great job summarizing the life and career of Anne B. Young. I found that the section about her time at Johns Hopkins medical school could use some attention. I think the information about her struggles as one of only a few woman in her class is an interesting addition, but I think a few more details to frame the context of her time there would help with the overall flow. I would also argue that adding more pictures throughout your article would make it more colorful and easier to follow since there is so much information. Finally, I really liked how you summarized a few of her key research papers and significant contributions. AllysCartwright (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We tried to reword some areas of the Johns Hopkins section in accordance with your suggestion. We tried to do this and also focus on maintaining neutrality. We thought this was an interesting aspect of her time in medical school, but we did not want to go too in depth and potentially show bias. We are adding more pictures that reflect the information in her research sections. Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well written • Overall, the article is articulated well, it is generally quite easy to understand. • One grammatical note – capitalize the ‘c’ in Professional career heading • The lead sections and layout of the article follow the guidelines of a ‘good article’\ • One possible area of suggestion is possibly re-working the Early + Personal Life section. The information contained in it I feel is good and relevant, I think in some areas is reads a bit staccato. By that, I mean that the entire paragraph could be maybe broken up into smaller paragraphs, as some sentences have no correlation with the sentence before it. • Ex: “Young grew up in a North Shore suburb of Chicago. Her feisty nature led her father to nickname her "Tiger Annie," and she was sent to prep school to keep her out of trouble. [3] Throughout her life, she has struggled with reading due to dyslexia. (new paragraph) Her parents were both involved in science… • Her parents being involved in science deviates from what was mentioned previously, and it reads a bit odd just being placed there. I suggest possibly either making that a new paragraph or somehow rewording or adding in new information between those two ideas to make it flow better • Aside from that, the rest of the article reads well and is well written

2. Verifiable with no original research • Article does contain references that are outlined and presented in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines • All sources/references are credible, but not all references/sources outlined in the article are secondary or tertiary sources, some are primary

3. Broad in coverage • The paragraphs under each section addresses the main aspect/topic • The article stays focused on each topic without going into lengthy unnecessary detail • Each subcategory under Professional Career is a good length; not too lengthy, but still contains a good amount of detail for the reader

4. Neutral • When evaluating the article, it reads from a neutral viewpoint. It doesn’t convey any information from a bias or unfair viewpoint

5. Illustrated • The article does contain an image • The image is relevant to the article and contains suitable captions

6. References • I looked at a few of the references you have a listed, and few number of them are primary sources which unfortunately can’t be used for writing Wikipedia articles • A source that I found that is secondary is reference #14 you have listed. This source is correctly cited in the article. Everything that this source contributed to the article was sited.

- Akunna Korieh

Hello! Thank you for your feedback! We fixed the grammar errors that you pointed out, and reworked some of the earlier sections to make them flow better. One thing we learned is that sections in Wikipedia are capitalized as sentences, not as titles, so we learned “Professional career” should be left as it was. We also made some of the sections in Early and Personal Life shorter. As far as our inclusion of primary sources goes, we used them in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines in order to summarize the research designs and results. We also added in some secondary sources in places to interpret the primary sources. Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

My one critique would also be the last sentence of the first paragraph. I feel that there should be a transition into it because it is an interesting fact, or it could be more into another section later on where you talk about her accomplishments. I enjoyed this article and the amount of detail put in when talking about her professional career. This could also be a place to put the sentence about her being the only person to be president both those organizations. -Madisyn Hengels

Thank you for your feedback! We reworded this section so that it flows better. Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello! I think that this is a good article. My favorite thing about it was the fact that the professional career portion was in chronological order. It helps the reader get a sense of how accomplished Young is. The article was very easy to read. I think that anyone would be able to read it without a problem. In terms of critiques, the only thing I can think of is in the overview portion, many of the sentences begin with "She". I know it can be difficult to avoid, but it makes the paragraph sort of repetitive. HBGoggans (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! We took another look at this section and changed some sentence structure and phrasing so that it was not as repetitive. Kennedy-MU (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)