User:Austincross44/sandbox

Icebox

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Everything in the article is relevant with few if any distractions. However, the article is extremely short and only gives a broad overview of the topic.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The article maintains a neutral and unbiased tone. However, there is a heavy focus on the aesthetics and design of the icebox with little information on who constructed them or their pre-twentieth century history.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • There is a short paragraph that talks about the design, and a slightly larger section that covers use. It could perhaps be improved with the addition of a section covering the history of this device in more detail and with more information on the function and construction in a separate section.

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • The external link on the bottom of the page titled "What's in Ice Box?" does not work. The two references in the article only focus on the living conditions of families in a specific city. Sources that cover a larger view could enhance the article.

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • There are no references for the "Design" section of this article. The "Use" section only has two citations with several unverified claims.

• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • There is a great deal of missing information in this article. There needs to be more information about the history of the icebox prior to the twentieth century, information on how and why the icebox was invented, and who created them and where.

• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • There has been no discussion on this article for several years. What conversation there is consists only of a few comments that are mostly unrelated to each other. However, given the short length of the article and several areas of missing information there is much discussion to be done in terms of how to improve this page.

• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • This article is part of two WikiProjects: Food and Drink and Home Living. It is rated as a start-class article of low to mid-importance. However, I believe this topic is important as the icebox can be argued as the direct predecessor to the refrigerator.

History of neuroscience

I have chosen to work on the history of neuroscience article. I choose it because there are several notable gaps in content and the article is far too short for such a complex field of science. Specifically, the article has a heavy focus on earlier neuroscience and a surprising lack of modern research. The section on the Middle Ages is also quite small and could use expansion. In addition, editors in the talk page have indicated that several notable neuroscientists have gone unmentioned in the article.

Potential Sources:

-The Birth of Information in the Brain: Edgar Adrian and the Vacuum Tube (2015). Garson, Justin; Casper, Stephen T.

-Instruments, nerve action, and the all-or-none-principle (1994). Frank, Robert G., Jr.

Peer Review by GladL (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (22-March-2019)

• I love the addition of the new section “Islamic views of Neuroscience.”

I suggest that you expand the first sentence, “Islamic medicine in the middle ages was focused on how the mind and body interacted and emphasized a need to understand mental health.” I think it would make the article better because readers might have different interpretations with the mind and body interactions and mental health topics. I think it would be good as well to cite specific examples, if you find one. (Specific examples like for mental health, maybe like what kinds of illnesses were present or the main concerns based from Islamic views)

• The addition of Avicenna is great because he has majorly contributed to Neuroscience.

For this part, I suggest that you connect some terms like “schizophrenia” and “melancholia” to their respective Wikipedia articles (if there any) so that readers can have like a “accessible dictionary” when reading your article since there are lots of technical terms in your article.

Personally, I suggest revising the sentence structures as well since it kinda sound monotonous with the repetitive use of He does this and He does that. At the same time, if there are references that would show dates about Avicenna’s discoveries (so that you can also arrange them chronologically), that would make it better. If there are also books or journals where Avicenna published his works, that would also be a great addition because it adds more to Avicenna.

• The additions you made for the twentieth century added more substance to it, and I like that you made the tone a little narrative. However, the conclusions seem to be hanging still, but I believe that you still have things to add on this portion.

For my suggestion, I think it would be great to add another section for 21st century to make the article “more updated” and to be able to fill the year gaps missing.  

• Generally, I believe that your additions so far are substantial and helpful to the article. The most important thing I think you could do to improve is to make the additions chronological or at least have a good transition because (for me at least) some portions sounded just enumeration and lack coherence. The necessary information are there, but I am just looking for a better “rhythm” while reading the article since it contains lots of technical jargon(?).

• I am doing the Women in NASA article, and I am very Glad that we are doing the same divisions for the dates (except that we did ours in decades). We also have the same additions of specific people and briefly describing who they are before going into their real contribution to the topic.

Good draft :) Looking forward to your revisions and additions! GladL (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Done by Matthew Jefferson

3/22/19

Matthew Jefferson

Peer Reviewing: History of neuroscience

1.) The author edited the twentieth century section on the page, added some information that sounds pretty important for the field of neuroscience. The links all work and appear to be credible. Overall the article grabbed my attention due to the fact that neuroscience is an extremely interesting topic that I believe the world should indeed know way more about.

2.) I think the author should add some more about different cultures impact on the field rather than focusing all of their energy on islamic views, in order to appear bias. I am not saying they were trying to but some others out there might now view it as such.

3.) I think it would be extremely important to have the article tie into the modern day at the end. Currently standing the article goes up to the 20th century, and since we are in the 21st century it might be nice to see where we are at in the field of neuroscience today, even if we haven't accomplished a crazy amount since the turn of the century.

4.) I like how in their draft, they included contributions from different cultures and nations, and that is exactly what I am trying to do in my article of biomedical sciences. I could discuss a brief section on neuroscience, as it falls into the category of biomedical science.

Mtj522 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Matthew Jefferson

Towards the end of the nineteenth century Francis Gotch conducted several experiments on nervous system function. His primary focus was on how nerve interaction affected the muscles and eyes.

Twentieth century

Neuroscience during the twentieth century began to be recognized as a distinct unified academic discipline, rather than studies of the nervous system being a factor of science belonging to a variety of disciplines.

Broca's hypothesis was supported by observations of epileptic patients conducted by John Hughlings Jackson, who correctly deduced the organization of motor cortex by watching the progression of seizures through the body. Carl Wernicke further developed the theory of the specialization of specific brain structures in language comprehension and production. Modern research still uses the Korbinian Brodmann's cytoarchitectonic (referring to study of cell structure) anatomical definitions from this era in continuing to show that distinct areas of the cortex are activated in the execution of specific tasks. Eric Kandel and collaborators have cited David Rioch, Francis O. Schmitt, and Stephen Kuffler as having played critical roles in establishing the field. Rioch originated the integration of basic anatomical and physiological research with clinical psychiatry at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, starting in the 1950s. During the same period, Schmitt established a neuroscience research program within the Biology Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, bringing together biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The first freestanding neuroscience department (then called Psychobiology) was founded in 1964 at the University of California, Irvine by James L. McGaugh. Kuffler started the Department of Neuroscience at Harvard Medical School in 1966.

Addition: Another major question for neuroscientists in the early twentieth century was the physiology of nerve impulses. A great deal of study on sensory organs and the function of nerve cells was conducted by British physiologist Keith Lucas and his protege Edgar Adrian. Keith Lucas' experiments in the first decade of the twentieth century proved that muscles contract entirely or not at all, this was referred to as the all-or-none principle. Edgar Adrian observed nerve fibers in action during his experiments on frogs. This proved that scientists could study nervous system function directly, not just indirectly. This led to a rapid increase in the variety of experiments conducted in the field of neurology and innovation in the technology necessary for these experiments. Much of Adrian's early research was inspired by studying the way vacuum tubes intercepted and enhanced coded messages.

Islamic Views of Neuroscience

Islamic medicine in the middle ages was focused on how the mind and body interacted and emphasized a need to understand mental health.

Avicenna (Ibn-Sina) is regarded by some as the father of modern medicine. He wrote 40 pieces on medicine with the most notable being the Qanun, a medical encyclopedia that would be a staple at universities for nearly a hundred years. He also explained phenomena such as, insomnia, mania, hallucinations, nightmare, dementia, epilepsy, stroke, paralysis, vertigo, melancholia and tremors. He also discovered a condition similar to schizophrenia, which he called Junun Mufrit, characterized by agitation, behavioral and sleep disturbances, giving inappropriate answers to questions, and occasional inability to speak. Avicenna also discovered the cerebellar vermis, which he simply called the vermis, the caudate nucleus both terms are still used in neuroanatomy today. He was also the first person to associate mental deficits with to deficits in the brain's middle ventricle or frontal lobe. Natecham (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)