Talk:David Van Essen

Untitled

I think you did a really good job at picking out the important information and including it in this article. I like that you included his career research overall as well as going into detail about his current research at his lab. I also like that you included his contributions. Overall, this is a very well written article and includes concise, neutral information.

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): Owen.patrick4, EllieM0703, Sondallea, Ryss120. Peer reviewers: 7826macfarm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Source

The lead section was very strong and hit all the points that they were further going to address throughout the article. It informs the reader who the article is about and what his profession and research is. The lead section also includes a small description of where he teaches, serves, and has a position in. In addition to that, they included all the awards and honors Van Essen has received throughout the years. 1) This article was written very clearly and was made sure it was directed towards a broad audience. When there were unfamiliar terms, the authors did a great job explaining them and making sure that the information was as concise as possible. From just first glance, I noticed that each section was nicely organized along with simple photos attached it. The links that were added to some unfamiliar words also helped me better understand the information. Overall, this article is very easy to follow and had great explanations for each section. There were no spelling or grammar errors within the article as well. 2) All the sources the authors used in this article are secondary sources except source #4. This source is considered a primary source because it is written by Van Essen himself. Although they did include all their sources and did the citation correctly with numbers, I still believe it would have been better to include the sources where the information was directly taken out of the source. In other words, I noticed that the sources were cited at the end of a paragraph instead of where in the paragraph they used the source. In addition, the section for “research career” did not include any sources at all. There were multiple parts of the sections where I thought there should have been a citation number next to it. All the source they used were all reliable secondary sources because they came from the websites of the institutes that he worked at. As of I am concerned, I did not find any plagiarism or copyright violations in this article besides the fact that source #4 is a primary source. The authors could have done a better job at citing the sources within the paragraphs. However, all the reliable sources could easily be found at the bottom of the article and are cited correctly with the title, link, and when it was retrieved. 3) The authors address all the important information about Van Essen. The content is organized very nicely into different sections where they included appropriate and accurate information. The main aspects of the topic included his Education, Research career, Current research, Contributions, and Selected publications. His research career and current research were described in a very simple and easy to follow manner. They made sure to stay on task and not include an unnecessary information. Personally, I excepted there to be more information about his research since the information about it was very simple and general. However, the article overall still hit all the significant aspects that were necessary to know about Van Essen. 4) There was no opinion-based information found in this article. It was very neutral all throughout and did not include any biased viewpoints. It was very straightforward and only focused on what he did in the past and present. 5) Throughout the article, I did not notice any difference in writing or content. Each section flowed with each other really well. There was no significant changes or differences between the contents. 6) Illustrated: There are two images included within this article that are both properly tagged with their copyright statuses—one was a neuromuscular junction diagram for the research career section and the other included brain circuits for his contributions section. The images have simple, but effective captions that related to the section it was place in. These images were easy to follow and really help me better understand the information it went along with. Although the captions are short and simple, the image itself were self-explanatory since they just represented diagrams and circuits. Overall, this article did a very nice job organizing all the information into different sections and focusing on each section without including any insignificant information. The source I chose to review their use of secondary sources is #5. This source was used in the current research section. In this section, the authors talked about how Van Essen was involved in the Human Connectome Project and elaborated more about what it was and his position in the project. They did a great job explaining it in their own words and including it as one of their sources. The source did say what the authors did in their article. The source itself was more detail and in-depth whereas the article only included more broad and general information about it. The authors only mentioned that a monkey was used in the project, however, the source said that they also used comparisons of apes and humans as well. The information was a little scattered around with another source which became hard to tell which secondary source was being used. It would have been much easier to read if the number citations were placed at the end of the sentence where they used that specific source. Overall, the authors did correctly cited source #5 in this section. Kit-Kat834 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Kit-Kat834

Thanks for your comment! I think you brought up a good point about the sources; that is definitely something we can work on in the next few days. We did include a primary source in our article just to get specific facts like his date of birth, but were careful not to use it beyond that. We are definitely making an active effort to get more information on his research, and are hoping to expand on that section! I also think you were correct on the usage of Source #5, and that we can definitely clarify that section a little further. Otherwise, I really appreciate your feedback and am glad that you found our article well-written and concise! EllieM0703 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello authors! Overall, great job including lots of relevant information and many components of Van Essen's life and career. 1) While the article was well written as a whole, I believe some parts could be rewritten to be more clear and flow better from a reader's perspective. While the introductory paragraph was very thorough, the last few sentences, which listed several awards and roles held, was a bit clunky. I think including one or two of the most significant accomplishments and then consolidating the others into a listed section with links to each might be easier to read. Additionally, I would recommend placing the link for Van Essen's lab when it is first mentioned in the introductory paragraph, instead of in the Current Research portion. Some other general suggestions I can provide are to check the article for consistency in tense (especially in the Research Career section), as well as streamlining the writing a bit more. With several authors, this can be difficult, but some of the writing was a bit unclear/awkward from a reader's point of view. One final point for improvement in consistency would be regarding the use of links. Some resources are linked multiple times, while others are not linked at their first mention. I would recommend either linking everything every time it is mentioned or everything only the first time it is mentioned in the article. 2) The research in the article supported the points being made. I chose to review source #1, which was the write up for the Distinguished Educator Award Van Essen received from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. This source discussed Van Essen's contributions while a member of faculty at the medical school. I think the authors used this source well and cited it correctly, but more information from it could be utilized. For example, the source mentions Van Essen's background in biomedical engineering and role as an Edison Professor of Neurobiology, which I did not see presented in the article. Overall, my greatest feedback regarding the sources used, and specifically source #1, would be to include more information and be more consistent with citations. While all the sources listed were used, the citations were sparse. For example, the Research Career section did not contain any citations but did include lots of referenced information. Therefore, I would suggest citing more frequently to avoid any issues of plagiarism. I would also suggest adding links for parcellation, human cortical development, and the central nervous system. Some of the links could also be followed by short explanations, as this article is meant for consumption by those without background in neuroscience. This could be useful when discussing topics such as morphogenesis, the cerebral cortex, or the connectome workbench. 3) Overall, I thought the authors did a great job covering a wide range of Van Essen's interests and pursuits, while also providing good detail and information that was specific enough to Van Essen. I did not find that the article branched off topic or was difficult to follow, outside of my suggestions regarding the introductory paragraph. In general, the information was concise and necessary. 4) The authors did a wonderful job remaining in a neutral tone and presenting the information without bias. 5) I thought the article was stable overall and did not seem contradictory or pieced together in an awkward/noncohesive manner. 6) The illustrations included definitely added to the article's content. I do think more figures could be added, perhaps of the monkey used for research or even the leech's nervous system. I thought the captions for the images included were concise yet descriptive. To conclude, this article is very strong, with a few minor areas for improvement. The authors did a great job presenting a lot of information with adequate detail, but in a concise manner. Overall, a wonderful page! -Gabriella Lorance

Thanks for your comment! I definitely think you are correct on further clarification, that is something that we are always working on. I also appreciate that you brought up the citations, since that is something we can work on correcting in the next couple of days. We are working on adding more information on Van Essen's research and are definitely trying to expand on this based on the suggestions we have received from the talk page. I think you brought up a lot of constructive points that we can improve on in this article. Other than that, I am glad that you thought it was well-written and concise! EllieM0703 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Very nicely written! I don’t have too much to add. I thought it was a great idea to make a separate section for David’s contributions since he has done so much in his field. I personally think it would be nice to have a colleague's section so we can see who he has worked with and in what aspect, but everything else you have is great! BrittanyMU (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting point that I have not considered yet. We will definitely discuss adding colleagues David has worked with. Thank you for your comment and constructive criticism. - Owen.patrick4 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello Authors! I do not see any areas in particular that need improvement. The article is well constructed and easy to read. I also like the use of appropriate photos throughout your article. If a photo of David is available for use it would be a nice touch to your article. Great job overall!--AlyssaSNeuro (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. We are still in the process of finding a picture of David to use for the article, but thank you for that input! - Owen.patrick4 (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello! After reviewing your article there isn't really anything I would say should be improved on. I liked how short and concise your sections were. It's always a good idea to break up information to make it look so overwhelming for your readers. The links were easy to navigate and everything looks well structured. The publication section was also easy to navigate. My only suggestion is if it's possible to find an image of David that would help put a face to the name. Very nice job!!--Miralex0209 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review! We had a picture of him, but it got taken down. We will try to find another picture to post! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sondallea (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

1.Overall, I thought this article was very well written. Everything was explained very thoroughly and in a way that was easy to follow and understand. However, I do think that there could be more detail added to the “Research career” section. 2.While there was good use of sources in this article, I think it would be better to site them directly after the information taken from the source rather than placing the citations at the end of each section. Also, there were no sources listed for the “Research career” section. For the references at the end of the article, I noticed that some references were listed multiple times. References 1 and 6 are the same, as well as 2 and 7. The source I chose to verify was #3. While this is a very good secondary source to use, it did not contain all the information cited in the article. The article cites it as the source for the “Education” section. The way the in-text citation is placed makes it seem like all information in that section came from this source. While it does provide information on his degree from Harvard and his postdoctoral work, it does not say anything about his time as an undergraduate (this information is from source #2). Also, the article states that he received his graduate degree from Harvard, but I believe it should specify that it was a doctoral degree. I also think that this source could be cited in the “Current research” section as well. While the sources provided in this section do provide a lot of the information, there is also some from this source as well. 3.This article did a good job of covering many aspects of Van Essen. Furthermore, I thought that all the information added to the article and there was not much “fluff”. The separation of the sections worked well and allowed for broad coverage of the topics, while still allowing it to flow well from section to section. 4.The article remained neutral throughout and did not contain any opinion-based information. The authors did a good job presenting information on Van Essen and his research without showing their opinions. 5.I thought this article remained stable throughout and the ideas flowed well from one to the next. 6.There is good use of images in this article, however I think there could be something added in the “Current research” section. There is a lot of information provided, so there is a lot of text. I think an image would help to break up the text a bit and could also help in understanding the information better. Overall, very good job! Cdol97 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! We will definitely try to add more information about his research career, as it was hard to find in-depth information especially regarding his career in undergrad. We will also fix the reference section that you had stated. Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sondallea (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hello, I have 2 suggestions. First, for the section on his education, it would be interesting to know generally what his postdoctoral work was on. I know he studied chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, but I don't really know what he did at the University of Oslo and at University College London. Secondly, since he is still employed at a university, you might be able to look up his university email and message him asking for a picture to use on the Wikipedia page! 7826macfarm (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion on the image! That is definitely something to consider going forward. As for the detail on his postdoctoral work, we are continuing to explore the resources we have and have yet to find really definitive information. I agree that it is a good place to continue working on. Great feedback! EllieM0703 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hi authors! Overall I think this is a good article. The layout of the article is very easy to follow, and I appreciate that the information was broken into small sections. I also like the use of figures throughout the article. If possible, a picture of Dr. Van Essen would be nice for the lead section, but I understand that can be hard to find! Overall the article was well written, good job! Laurenbaylor (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Finding a picture of David has been a difficulty for the article. We had a picture that has recently been taken down so now we are attempting to find another picture. - Owen.patrick4 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• David Van Essen.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)