Talk:Cincinnati Water Maze

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StepheJ, Hunter.ar, William.eggers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

@William.eggers, StepheJ, and Hunter.ar: Nice work on your article draft

• Your draft is incomplete. There are several notes that mention sources, but they haven't actually been added. References should appear immediately after the statements they support. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and there shouldn’t be any text after the last reference in a paragraph.
• You need to add links to other Wikipedia articles. Topics and terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be linked the first time they appear in the article.
• Your paragraphs are too long, especially the Comparison to other mazes section. It's difficult for readers to make their way through such long blocks of text. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Goal of This Page

This page was created as a part of Wikipedia's education program. The authors of this article are part of a neurobiology class, and wanted to be able to expose readers to another, although not as well known, water maze. The goal of the group is, once the reader finishes the article, the reader will be able to walk away with an understanding of the mechanics, a brief history, the pros and cons (in comparison to other well known water mazes), and current uses of the Cincinnati Water Maze.

Hunter.ar (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Image

Any chance one of you is artistic and can draw a picture of the maze? I would use a program like Illustrator to do that. It would make a nice visual for the reader. MMBiology (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not ready for primetime

Contains things like:

• .."a type of water maze normally run on rodents." No, rodents are put though the maze.
• "he CWM is a water maze that is ran using a setup that involves a series of nine interconnected T-intersections. " (This not English and is trying to hard to sound formal. I think this is just trying to say: "The CWM has nine interconnected T intersections"...)
• "The predecessor to the CWM the Biel Water Maze (BWM) was invented in 1940 by W. C. Biel (figure out what W. C. Stands for) to test rats’ egocentric navigational capabilities." (has edit note, missing commas around the appositive, and what the heck is an "egocentric navigational capability"? This should be explained in plain english the first time it is used.

Full of bad writing like this. Please do basic copyediting for normal English grammar, and please copyedit to explain things simply, in plain and direct English, and remove all editing notes etc. I considered moving this to userspace but am trying to avoid drama.

There are also a bunch of primary sources used like PMID 25451306 and PMID 27756629, and the references are not formatted correctly and include things like links to the university's proquest service.Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

student review

 1. Grammar/ not properly explained- throughout the main space, there are easy-to-fix grammatical errors (examples below). There are also words that should have links and an explanation as to what they are (examples below)
   a. Intro- “rodents are put in them and observed and timed” (Shouldn’t be two ands)
   b. Intro – “one that has been treated” (treated with what, and why?)
   c. Intro- “usually trying to understand something about cognition or emotion” (What could be this “something”?)
   d. In general- there are a number of long sentences, with many commas, that can become difficult to read. (try breaking them up into smaller sentences)
   e. History- “to ensure the internal stimuli the primary source of information”. (Was there an “is” that was missing?)
   f. History- “Nevertheless, the original design…” (Using “nevertheless” makes it sound like a counterpoint is being made, but to what?) You then used nevertheless again, at the beginning of the following paragraph, and was used correctly.
   g. Uses- How do they exactly “map areas of the brain where spatial learning occurs”?
   h. Analyses- “as it includes more variables that must be accounted” (Than what? Other water maze types?)
   i. Analyses – I think using a list, instead of paragraphs, would make the comparison between mazes clearer. In paragraph form, it becomes more convoluted and difficult to keep track of.
   j. Analyses- adding pictures, for each type of maze, would make it easier to understand what’s exactly being described.
   k. Conclusions- The second sentence, as a whole, is confusing, so try re-wording. (“With different routes and decisions…”)
   l. Conclusions- This sentence is confusing because of its length; try breaking it into smaller sentences. (“All these mazes centered on cognitive research…”).
 2. Layout- the overall format appears to be done correctly
   a. Again try to use a list for the comparison between mazes.
   b. Use more pictures to compliment your description of their differences.
   c. Use pictures of rats in the actual maze, to make the read more interesting.
 3. Verifiable (Sources)
   a. The article “Brain networks underlying navigation in the Cincinnati water maze with external and internal cues” is a secondary source. The reference made “the mouse is able to use both allocentric and egocentric cues to escape”, is only true for the light centered trials. The dark trial rats really could only use internal cues (egocentric). This transition between the use of either mostly allocentric or egocentric cues was what was used to explain the difference in learning capabilities between the light and dark trial rats. If you want to go more in depth, the differences between how egocentric (dark trial rats) actually learned faster can be explained, but this reference does not seem to be correctly used right now.
   b. Going more in depth with this source would narrow the focus too much for your article, so keep it as a brief reference as it was originally (i.e. is now).
 4. Coverage- covers the topic well without going into too much or too little detail.
 5. Neutral- appears to be unbiased and neutral in its explanations.
 6. Illustrations- explained in layout (above).
   a. Illustration used is from commons so it’s good to use
 7. Main focus- The main issue, right now, is the long sentences that become hard to read/ understand. There are also small grammar mistakes throughout the article, so just re-read it and fix them. Also use more illustrations. This article does have a good description and purpose of the Cincinnati Water Maze, though.

Houstonwehaveaprob (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions

We have gone through our page and believe we have corrected the grammatical errors that you have pointed out. Moreover, we are creating a list of subtitles to separate the comparisons of the CWM to the other water mazes. Finally, we are including a video of rat swimming in a water maze that should readers to visualize how the CWM is used. Again, thank you for your constructive criticism.

StepheJ (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This article contains a lot of great information and is a very interesting read. The leading paragraph contains a few grammatical errors that can be easily fixed to make it an easier read. If there is a video that can be possibly added to the article that shows how the maze actually works would be a great add on. The section comparing the maze to other mazes is a definitely a strong point in the article and helps the reader to better understand how it works, and the pros and cons of the maze. Good job! Jenelove (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall there is a lot of great information here. I would just reiterate what everyone has been saying about the grammar in the article. There are run-on sentences and awkwardly phrased prose throughout. I would also consider getting rid of the weaknesses section and putting that paragraph right under "analysis," especially since there is a "pros" section. -Alex H — Preceding unsigned comment added by MU golden eagle (talk • contribs) 14:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well written, there are many grammar and syntax mistakes throughout the entire article. Reread the entire thing and please fix these. Some that popped out to me were:

a. History, sentence in the first paragraph talking about internal stimuli. Also, another possible issue here is that in your article you describe the differences between going from A to B, and then B to A. Looking at the picture you included it seems as if going from A to B is where the rat turns halfway down a length of the T, and going from B to A is comparable to the previous method of every turn being at a T-intersection.

b. Uses, again general syntax and grammar errors. Few that I found were: Differentiation from other mazes, the second sentence makes no sense; No comma after T-maze; And, if so, ...; From this, ... no comma at the end of sentence.

c. Conclusions, second sentence is very confusing.

2. Verifiable with no original research, I looked at the article "Cincinnati water maze: A review of the development, methods, and evidence as a test of egocentric learning and memory." This was a great secondary article and I was easily able to find the information you used about good learning curves in your article. There was a lot of other information here, but you all stuck to what was relevant about the CWM. Great job.

3. Broad in coverage, you did a great job of seemingly covering all the information about this topic that you set out to per your post above.

4. Neutral, did not suggest better or worse and in fact added weaknesses and strengths. Great job.

5. Stable, N/A

6. Illustrated, the picture included is very helpful. Only other thing I could think of is maybe include pictures of the other mazes to leave less to the imagination (although if you click on the links you can see the pictures).

Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and learning about the CWM, but it was somewhat difficult due to the errors so fix the multiple grammar and syntax mistakes by going through and rereading your information. One last thing, when you add links to other Wiki or external articles only link to them once, the first time they show up in your article!

Pfletch (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)pfletch

Reply to review

Thanks for your review, we fixed the grammar mistakes and made a few stylistic changes to each section. We also changed the sentence that you mentioned in the history section about the internal stimuli and made it more clear. We added a video to the uses section to make it clearer how the rat is observed during runs. We also took out repeats of links to other pages and only linked when the word was first mentioned Kickpuncher08 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. For the most part, the article is well-written. I think there is a good balance between short, concise sentences and more detailed sentences that provide specific information. The phrasing of the first sentence, “The Cincinnati Water Maze (CWM) is a type of water maze” was slightly disconcerting to me, as I didn’t know what a water maze was before reading the article. Because it is the first sentence of the article, you may want to consider adding more detail or combining some of the sentences in the first paragraph. The wording of the sub-category “Differentiation of other Mazes” under “Analysis” felt awkward to me; I think it may be more clear to use “Differentiation from other Mazes”. The second sentence in the “Maze conclusions” section did not make sense to me; I think you may have left out some words. There are also some minor grammatical errors throughout, such as missing apostrophes (i.e. “…observing the subjects ability to maneuver the maze…” in “Maze conclusions”).

2. Your citations look good. Each sub-section contains at least one in-text citation, and all of the references seem to be formatted correctly.

3. The article covers the topic well, giving both a useful overview and more detailed explanations of the topic. The goals outlined by the authors, specifically to provide an understanding of the mechanics and history of the Cincinnati water maze, to discuss its pros and cons, and to explain current uses of the maze, were met.

4. The article seems to be neutral and the topic is discussed with no bias.

5. N/A

6. I think more images could be added to enhance the article. The image used is from the Commons, so it is approved. The schematic of the Cincinnati Water Maze with the caption is helpful, and the article could see improvement with the addition of more images like this one. Maybe add a few of the other mazes (Biel maze, T-maze) to help explain the distinctions.

Source Verification

Reference #7 Hanson, Anne. "Rats and Mazes". www.ratbehavior.org.

This source qualifies as a secondary source. The source was summarized well in the article when discussing the differences between the various types of experimental mazes. I think you could create your own schematics of other mazes by adapting some of the images described in the article. With something as visual as a maze, I think it would help clarify your explanations and make your article more helpful. --CollPaulie (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

REPLY TO PRIMARY REVIEW

Thanks for your feedback. We definitely had a lot of grammar and sentence structure to clean up. I believe it is all taken care of now. We are working on bringing in more pictures as I agree more images would be very helpful as not many people know what water mazes are to begin with, let alone the concept of rat based mazes. Will try to get a good variation of maze types and am cleaning up sentence structure and format of the anaysis section to make it more readable.

William.eggers (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)William Eggers

Secondary Student Review

Hey guys, overall you have done quality research and have added necessary information to the article. I also agree with other reviewers that there are several grammatical errors that must be changed throughout several sections of the article. For example what do you mean when you say “the walls are wide enough so tat the rat cannot prop itself up”? This is a bit confusing, and is also an example of a run on sentence. There are a few more run-on sentences throughout the article that I would suggest proofreading and editing. I think the idea of having a video that actually shows the maze in action would also be very helpful in understanding the topic. In your goals section you discuss introducing readers to another not as well known water maze (Cincinnati water maze), you have done a good job accomplishing this goal and comparing this maze to other more well-known mazes. Overall you did a good job obtaining the necessary information to accomplish each of your editing goals. Jkrumholz13 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

There are grammatical errors and poorly written sentences in the beginning of the article. It seems to be more professional as you go on. It may read more professionally if you eliminate the clarification in parentheses and put that information into sentence form. I also think this article could do with more pictures and/or videos to help elaborate the structure and function of this technique. Maybe even bring in pictures of the other mazes in your comparison section. Overall, I enjoyed the article and found it easy to read! Good addition to Wikipedia! --AMonocle (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

You have presented good information in this article, but the grammatical errors make it difficult to read. I think that going back through and rephrasing your intro paragraph, focusing on concise sentences and proper punctuation, would give the article a stronger start. Throughout your article there are some words missing and misplaced punctuation that distract from the research that you have done. Having someone go through the whole article to make edits (as opposed to individuals editing certain sections) would make your page sound much more professional and would allow readers to focus on the great research presented, as opposed to the errors made in the presentation itself. I agree with the other students that have mentioned that more images or even a video would be really beneficial in helping the reader visualize what you are presenting in your article. BMehall (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review Cincinatti Water Maze

There is a lot of great information here but due to some run-on sentences and grammatical errors it is kind of hard to decipher. I agree with other reviewers that more pictures/videos of the maze and other mazes would be helpful in explaining the topic. Overall this is a great start to the article it just requires some more editing and explanation with less technical terms. Remember that a layperson will be reading it when you edit it next and make changes in that regard. Kmeyer517 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, a lot of good content and use of solid sources. I would try to add more images and check grammar. Maybe add bullets and some points when you are listing things such as comparisons. Solid first draft though!--T.thompson19 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, there is very good information about the topic, but again I suggest going over the grammar and using formal language for this article For example, the last sentence on the first paragraph, 'The experimenter is usually trying to understand something about cognition or emotion.' instead of saying 'trying to understand something about' you can place, 'The experimenter is usually trying to understand cognitive or emotional behaviors'. Remember that you can still explain this with less technical terms and maintian formal language. I also agree that the title weaknesses should be deleted and keep that paragraph under Analysis. Just state on the first sentence of that paragraph that there are some weaknesses or errors within this maze. --BCBF13 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Looking at the article as a whole it is clear and obvious that grammatical errors are to be found. This can easily be fixed by going back and restructuring the sentences into more concise and straight forward. I do think however that quality research was put into this article but to maybe expand the readers learning there could be more visual display whether it be video or pictures of how this maze actually works so the article can be understood more clearly. Your article matches up well with your proposition so just elaborate on the article a little more and it will look great. Good job overall! Crnogorac15 (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Crnogorac15

Primary Review

1.There were grammatical errors, and specifics for each section are mentioned below. Overall, reread the article to correct the grammar errors.

a. Summary Paragraph: The last sentences “ The experimenter…” can be rewritten to better end the section. b. Overview: “ The second sentence “ The rats are forced to find their way” should be edited. The second paragraph of this section has good information, but maybe can be put under a new section such as “ purpose”, or either reorganized to flow better. c. History: This section has good information, but there were a couple of sentences such as the second one where it said, “ to ensure the internal stimuli the primary source of information”, I think may have missed the word “is” between “stimuli” and “the”. Also in the last two sentences of the paragraph, what you wrote for the caption for the picture and the last two sentences of the paragraph don’t really match up, so fix that. d. Uses: Edit the first sentence, so that it can flow better. The test is useful in mapping areas of the brain where spatial learning occurs. Also link “egocentric”. e. Analysis: Adding more pictures for this section of the different mazes would make it easier to understand this section. Also in the second sentence of this paragraph, what “ more variables” should be accounted for when drawing conclusions? In the section under Analysis, which is called “ Maze conclusions”, the first two sentences should be looked at again and rewritten because they are confusing.

2.Verifiable with no original research: The article contains a list of references and is in accordance with the layout style guidelines. The article contains no original research and does not contain any copyright violations or plagiarism. All their citations from their sources follow the scientific citation guidelines. I looked at the articles and I was able to find all the information they cited and they did a good job deciding what information to include and what information not to include.

3.Broad in its coverage: The article address the main aspects of the topic and it are focused on the topics and do not go into unnecessary details. A good job was done in choosing relevant information for the article.

4.Neutral: The article was neutral and there was no editorial bias.

5.Stable: Did not need to do this section.

6.Illustrated: The addition of pictures would help a lot. In specific, adding pictures to the analysis section for when you talk about the different mazes would help the reader visual it better. The links already show some of the mazes, but if you can find pictures for the ones where there are no links, that would make comparing the mazes a lot easier.

7.Source verification: The article I chose to verify was “Dopamine depletion in either the dorsomedial or dorsolateral striatum impairs egocentric Cincinnati water maze performance while sparing allocentric Morris water maze learning”. This article is a secondary source as defined by Wikipedia. In this article, they talk about egocentric learning and allocentric learning and how they were used. The source was very scientific and the authors were able to take all the information and make it simple enough to be put into the article. The information they used was filtered and any of the information in the article would have only added unnecessary scientific information, which would not have added value to the article.

Overall, the article has a lot of good information about the CWM, but the grammatical errors, and the lack of pictures can make the article difficult to understand. Just reread your article a few times and it should be good. I really enjoyed reading your article.

HarshPatel1 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Harsh P.

Primary Review Response

@HarshPatel1:

Thank you for helping us out! We made sure to go though and address those grammatical errors you pointed out. We also added a video of a general water maze to help viewers have an idea how water mazes generally work. We did not add additional images that depicted other water mazes because we figured the viewer could just click on the link for a more in depth explanation of the maze. As for the Biel Water Maze, we created a broken link that will link to the Biel Water Maze page once it is created.

Thanks again

Hunter.ar (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)