# Talk:Gerald Fischbach

I'm currently trying to edit this page, and I seem to have trouble formatting references for online journals. I tried to use the templates Wikipedia gives but they don't seem to be working. Specifically, reference 6 in the Harvard University section is completely wrong. Any input would be appreciated.
--Hortonan (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Andrew I rewrote reference 6 when I figured out how to fix the repeated references so I think it should be right now. Kierak33 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Until a better # is found, per his Charlie Rose bio "began his research career at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), serving from 1966 to 1973"; he is an MD per New York Stem Cell Foundation, so my uneducated guess is he was then older than 25. So i call his v-stats as "born c. 1930s", taking advantage of the uncertainty that "c." implies.--Jerzy•t 05:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I read over your article and did some background research myself and thought that you guys did a really nice job covering a topic that isn't too popular.  Here are some suggestions, feel free but not obligated to use them.
In the National Institutes of Health 1966-1973 section:
I really liked how you not only explained the techniques of scientific research but you also connected that to the impact and importance of the research.  I suggest that if possible (I know the resources are scarce) try to do the same thing regarding the details/importance of the research in the University of Washington 1981-1990 section.  
In the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 1998-2001 section: I think it would be wise to expand the section "one of which being helping to shape national policy on important neurological research issues."  I'm not too familiar with what this means exactly, but it seems like this would be an interesting topic to know a little more about.  Does this have to do with ethics at all?  On what people think is humane or inhumane testing on humans regarding neurological testing?  Perhaps you could share the man's views on this topic?  Just a suggestion.  
Also-for the Columbia University section:  Think about expanding the section when you say the research stemmed off of his previous research.  Did he conduct the same experiments or the same topics studied?  
Finally, is there any way to incorporate where his research has led to?  What I mean by this is: has anybody picked up where he left off?  Has his research served as motivation for current research?  
I thought your Autism section was really good.  It seems like this guy is pretty influential in science and it's nice that he's trying to figure out autism.  The section was well written.
Overall, I thought your article was awesome!  Sorry for criticizing and sounding harsh...just have to comply to the rules of the assignment.  Feel free to critique my article, Rostral Migratory Stream.  I'd like to hear your comments!  Also, once again, please just let me know if you get this.  Thanks again and good job!  
-Alexandra Kennedy Pretkennedy (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)pretkennedy

Thanks Alexandra for your comments! I'll pass them along to my group members that were responsible for those sections. With regards to the Columbia University section and what his current research is focused on, we're in the process of trying to figure that out. There is no information available online with the exception of a few papers he wrote (in the publications area). We're actually waiting for an email back from his secretary right now. Thanks for your feedback!
~Meredith Kochmd (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading over the article I felt that you guys gave a complete and informative picture of Gerald Fischbach. The article covered all the parts of his life in a balanced manner. I do have a few suggestions, though, which you can mull over. On the information side I'll echo Alexandra in recommending that you include what exactly his research has led to, the tangibles. It would seem that for the amount of time he has spent researching topics within neuroscience there would exist some direct advancements or benefits in the field. On a less serious note I was not sure from the wording in the article if Fischbach was the dean of three separate entities at the same time or if he was the dean at different times for you give a span of time. On the mechanics of the article I noticed a few paragraphs had the same footnote for each sentence. I think this might be redundant. Also with all the organizations listed in the article the hyperlinking and abbreviations are varied. For both issues I'd recommend that you hyperlink the organization once when you first use it and the same for spelling it out using the acronym for the rest of the article. I also think something needs to be done with the University of Washington heading. It sticks out due to its shortness. I'd say either elaborate or eliminate it. A last note I think it'd help if the article if you could somehow get a picture of fischbach in it. Anyway the article over all is very well written and I hope my comments help. Wesmather (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wes for your suggestions. As I responded to Alexandra, we're waiting to hear back from him personally regarding where exactly his research has progressed to in the last 10 years since there isn't a lot of information available on it currently. I believe one of our group members is in the process of getting a picture of him approved for use, we just couldn't get it done by the rough draft date. The suggestion about U Washington is very accurate and we'll look into finding more info about it. I'll also clarify in the article that he was the Dean of all three departments at Columbia University all at the same time. Thanks, and your comments definitely did help!
Kochmd (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guys,
I thought this article did an excellent job of giving an organized and detailed account of the accomplishments and education of Gerald Fischbach. I especially liked the way you gave specific chronological time periods of his time at each school/organization, and his research focuses while he was there. To not be redundant because I see that you already have some advice from users suggesting a section focusing on his current research and possibly obtaining a picture(both of which I'm sure are difficult to get done as you have said these are in progress), my only suggestion for an otherwise excellently written article would be maybe to use some wikilinking in some more of the scientific and neurobiological terms you use in the article like neuromuscular junctions. One last note, I also thought that the awards and publications section was very impressive organization and formatting, this article definitely measures up well to the other wikipedia articles on scientists/people in general. Good Job! (Adondaki (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC))
Really great article! I really like that his research and awards are presented in chronological order. The article is very well written, and it looks like you guys put a great deal of research into it! Similar to other suggestions, my biggest suggestion is to link to and/or give brief explanations of some of the scientific terms, such as action potential, synapse, neuregulin, etc. Also, it may be possible to link to some things earlier in the article, such as acetylcholine, which is linked in the section about his time at Harvard but is also mentioned in the preceding section about his time at the National Institute of Health. Overall, excellent job! Quallsk  —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC). 

Thank you for your suggestions.  We will definitely work on linking and defining some of the scientific terms you mentioned and hopefully we will have a picture in the next couple of days. (Kierak33 (talk) comment added 15:47 PM, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, and not something that I really expected. As a historically significant figure in the field of neuroscience, I think you captured his "biography" well. Generally, all the main points have been covered through his personal life, education, and his academic tenures. The article is well worded, and I don't see any grammatical or spelling errors. I think a picture of Dr. Fischbach may make the article more visually appealing at some level. More hyperlinking of terms can improve the article. Additionally, I believe that a more in depth description of some of his principle works and their potential legacies to the field would make the article even better. Great job though! Thanks. --Lorenzes (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, we are actually in the process of getting the rights to a picture of Dr. Fischbach so that should be up soon.  We have also contacted him directly to get more information on his research at each stage throughout his career, so once we hear back from him we will try to get that information in the article.  Thanks again! Solomojk (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Solomojk

Good job on the article.  You have a lot of sources and cite them well, and seem to give a thorough background on the life of Fischbach.  I would definitely suggest a picture of Gerald Fischbach, but it looks like you are already in the process of getting rights to one.  Furthermore, I would suggest more information on his time at the University of Washington from 1981-1990, focusing on specifically what he researched and accomplished in the time period.  It seems that in most of the other paragraphs you have information on the exact research he conducted at that time, so adding more information here would make the article more cohesive and useful.  
Also, in the Simons Foundation 2006-Present section you do present the research which Fischbach is currently working on, but perhaps a separate section should be created underneath that with other future/ongoing research so that other editors who may have new and ongoing information can add to it easily.   
Lastly, this is very minute, but under Simons Foundation 2006-Present, you say that Fischbach works to try to understand autism more "deeply"... this sounds a bit unscientific, and maybe a better word would be "completely" or "specifically". 

-- martaak (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.  We are working on getting information about his current  research endeavors so we can create a new section for future editors to add to and more information about his time at the University of Washington so we can make that section more cohesive with the rest of the article.  Kierak33 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey I really like your article overall. I think your group presented a lot of great information and covered the major points. The descriptions of his work at different places was concise, but thorough. My only suggestion would be to add more information about his work at the University of Washington or possibly consider removing it as a paragraph and simply keep it in the summary since it does not seem too significant at the moment. I would also suggest trying to add a picture since those are always useful. I also read that he pioneered the use of nerve cell cultures so I would suggest including that since I did not see it in your article. Otherwise, I thought the article was well written and informative. 
Gshan12     (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.248.207 (talk)  
(Gshan12 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC))
Thank you for your input.  We are working on finding additional publications from his time at the University of Washington so we can expand this section further and we are just waiting for approval from Wikipedia for a picture we submitted.  Nerve cell culture is discussed in the National Institutes of Health section, but we can definitely make this description more clear and connect it with other sections. Kierak33 (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, great job on your article. I really enjoyed reading a biography- definitely a change of pace from the majority of the other topics. Your article is very well done- thorough, organized, and well-researched. A few suggestions: in the intro I would recommend including more information about the significance of his research, or the ultimate impact that his research has made on the scientific community. This would help get the reader hooked right off the bat, as they realize that his contributions and bio are worth reading about. It is great to know about the various important positions he has held and the places he has worked, but I think it is more valuable to know what he did in those positions. In addition, a minor detail, but I think it would be nice to have a photo of Fischbach at the top of the page. I personally like having the person I am reading about in mind while reading. I hope these suggestions help. Keep up the good work! Tlicolli (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, we will definitely try to include more about his research in the introduction to help hook the reader.  A picture is on its way soon hopefully!  We are just awaiting approval from Wikipedia.  Kierak33 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your article has a lot of things on his accomplishments and research and things like that, but not enough on personal life? maybe it can be better if you guys include about his early life even a little bit and then his marriage life including whether they have children or not and things like that. Also, it would be great i think if you guys can add a picture of his face or of him doing research if there are any that can be found? There seems to be some lecture he made about autism too, so it might be good to add like a link to it too maybe? I found one here when i searched about him: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/844. I hope this helps improve your page better! Other than that, I think the headings and organization and the references are made well. --Smiley4rang (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions.  Unfortunately, we could not find any information about his early life before he attended Colgate University, which is why his personal information begins at that point.  We are in contact with his assistant, but Wikipedia does not allow information from primary sources that cannot be verified.  A picture is also currently in the works as we are still waiting for approval from Wikipedia, but it will be up soon hopefully!  Great idea about the external links to lectures, we will definitely look into this.  Thanks again. Kierak33 (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
We decided not to use any external links to his lecture videos because Wikipedia has very strict guidelines on external links for living biographies.  Additionally, many of these videos are copy righted, but thank you for the great idea. Kierak33 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOS and, especially, WP:MOSBIO and try to apply those guidelines here... Please also realize that anything that you write in a biography of a living person needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.  I read through the guidelines and made changes to the article to fit within the Manual of Style and Manual of Style for Biographies. Let us know if you think anything else should be changed. Kierak33 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, the article looks really great. The formatting fits with that of other bio pages and the content itself is thorough. Here are just a few suggestions:

Under the "NIH 1966-1973" section, ARIA is a non-existent hyperlink (shows up in red)
It's great that you were able to find a bunch of sources, but you tend to rely heavily on the first source you cite. A more equal distribution of the information from different sources will do a lot to strengthen your article.
I know you guys can't exactly do the "current/future research" section, but maybe a little more detail about what Gerald Fischbach is doing today and maybe a comment (not an opinion, but rather something that you find in the research on him) on his impact on the scientific community could be an appropriate way to end the article.
Also, I don't know if you guys have looked through this, but Wikipedia has a list of requirements for pages that are [|biographies of living persons]. Before Wednesday, make sure you have adhered to these guidelines!
Good luck! Stempera (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Abby!! We'll make sure to correct the ARIA link and to try to distribute our references so that they're more spread out. For current / future research, we're planning on at least describing one or two of his most recent publications to give some insight into where his previous discoveries have led to. We'll try to find something about his impact on the scientific community too. Thanks! 
Kochmd (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerald Fischbach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that this article is connected with the Neuroscience course at Boston College. If there is any information you would like to provide me about the project that may be relevant to my review, please let me know. I see that the article was nominated by Kierak33, were there other students involved in this project?--Tea with toast (話) 04:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


### Issues needing to be addressed
Hello. I'm about half way through my review, but I've noticed a few things that need to be taken care. The first is citation style errors; I've been fixing several of them, but there are too many for me to deal with, so I will ask you to take care of the rest of them. (See subsection below). The next item is the citation that is needed for the "Education" section. I verified what was contained in the reference given and there was no mention of his wife or children, so another will need to be found. If you can't find a ref, then just take out those sentences since they are not necessarily vital to the article. Over the next few days I will go through all of the sources and citations to make sure that they are all in agreement. 
Most of the changes that I have made to the article are simple formatting edits, some of them are a bit particular to Wikipedia as compared to other writing style you may use in school. One such category is Endashes. Please see that link to learn how to use them. You can also review the changes I made to the article as an example for their proper use. --Tea with toast (話) 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I changed all the remaining publication references using the bot so hopefully those will appear in a couple hours. I also changed all the website references to match the initial website reference you fixed.  The dates the articles were published are included, but I can remove those if you think they are unnecessary.  Additionally, I reviewed the Endashes and will fix any problems I come across today.  Thank you again for all your help! Kierak33 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


#### Citation style examples
Please use the following format for all journal article citations:

Tsuboi, K.; Takezaki, N.; Ueda, N. (2007). "The N-Acylethanolamine-Hydrolyzing Acid Amidase (NAAA)". Chemistry & Biodiversity. 4 (8): 1914. doi:10.1002/cbdv.200790159. PMID 17712833.
Please note the places of periods and spaces. Journal titles should be italicized, the only the volume number is in bold and the issue number is in parentheses. One really awesome tool that makes this a lot easier are the templates Template:Cite pmid and Template:Cite doi. If your ref has a PMID or a doi, all you have to do is enter the number into the template and a bot will fill all the details in for you! Example:

<ref name=Tsuboi2007>{{cite pmid|17712833}}</ref>. That should produce the citation above. (It might take the bot a few hours to get to it, and you should always check up on it later. Sometimes the bot will make minor errors, which you can edit for yourself)
For the web citations, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style#Websites and webpages and follow those formatting rules. Only the title of the webpage should be linked to the source (thus, only the title should be in blue). All web pages should have a retrieval or access date. My personal preference for the style of dating is "4 December 2011" or "December 4, 2011" (I avoid numbers-only dating since some Europeans would confuse 12-4-2011 for April 12th.) So long as the date numbering is the same for all refs, I'll be happy. 
Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


### Changes needed
Hello. I apologize for the delay in completing my review of this article. In general, GA reviews can take up to a week for an editor to perform, but normally I try to get it done as soon as I sign up to review. I have finished my review of the article, and I see that there are a few changes that need to be made before I can pass it. The biggest change that is needed is that there should be a section dedicated solely to his research. Right now, all of his research endeavors are scattered into the timeline of the locations he work, and from this it is hard to really grasp his scientific accomplishments aside from his executive roles. Creating a new section would also help clean up other problems I see in the text, such as repeating information about neuregulin and the mention of his 1993 work in the 1966-73 section. I do not think it should take too much work to pull sentences from the various subsections to create a new section, just be sure that when you paste together all the science-related sentences that you include a few transitions so that the new section flows better. For what remains of the chronology of his career, you can still keep the mention that x discovery occurred in y location, and other such important info. Let me know if you have any questions about this or if you need any help.
Two other items:

Ref #22. Please find a new source. It is invalid to cite another wikipedia page as a reference. It is okay to use internal links or to make footnotes that link to another Wikipedia article, but do not cite it as a source reference.
Towards the end of the "National institute..." subsection: "This indicated that neuregulin is not necessary for the proliferation of oligodendrocyte multipotent precursor cells.". I do hope that the word "not" is an error, because all the evidence I read seems that neuregulin is necessary, and if my assumption is wrong, then I need to spend more with this to make sure I get everything correct.
I will put the article on hold until these changes can be made. I thank you for all your effort in working on this page; the changes you have made to this previous stub are remarkable. Keep up the good work! --Tea with toast (話)

Hi Tea with Toast!
I changed ref #22 to the original publication the h index comes from.  It was added by another Wikipedia editor who helps the Society for Neuroscience, which is why we left it in place.  Additionally, neuregulin affects oligodendrocyte proliferation but has no effect on the precursor cells. Below is the section of the publication this came from:
"Recombinant Neuregulin Rescues Oligodendrocyte Development.
We next wanted to determine whether neuregulins were necessary before or after 9.5 dpc for oligodendrocyte development to proceed normally. To address this question, spinal cords from E9.5 embryos were used to generate parallel cultures. One culture received 1 nM recombinant neuregulin, and the other received a control buffer at the time of plating. The addition of recombinant neuregulin rescued oligodendrocyte development in explants from NRG −/− mice (Fig. ​(Fig.2),2), and thus we conclude that neuregulin is necessary for oligodendrocyte development in spinal cord after ≈9.5 dpc. Because recombinant neuregulin can rescue oligodendrocyte development when added at ≈9.5 dpc, it is unlikely that neuregulin is required for the survival, differentiation, or proliferation of a primitive, multipotent precursor cell present before this stage."
Lastly, in regards to creating a research section.  I feel that in the current format the information in each section introduces the research Fischbach conducted at each post he held, which our group believed made the article easier to follow.  It created a chronological timeline in which you can see the progression of his research and understand the roles he held at each university or agency. My concern is that by creating a research section the original sections will seem to have no purpose other than to say he held this post or this position in addition to making a very dense research section.  Let me know your thoughts.  Thanks again
Kierak33 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note on ref 22: this was not a reference to a Wikipedia article. It was a reference to the Web of Science. As WoS has an article here, I wikilinked it, but I see how this can be confusing. I have modified the reference, hopefully it is more clear now. Unfortunately, I cannot give a URL. WoS is behind a paywall and URLs are dynamic, meaning that they would only work for me on the particular computer that I happen to use at the moment that I am accessing WoS... However, anyone with access can easily check the ref. (And WP does not forbid references to paywalled articles). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


### Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Great work! --Tea with toast (話) 04:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)