Talk:Patricia Goldman-Rakic

message: This Wikipedia page does a good job going over Patricia Goldman-Rakic’s contribution to the study of neuroscience.   However, the page mentions details that are not applicable to her work in the field. In the education section, it is mentioned what schools she attended, where she worked as a graduate professor and the bond she had with her students.  The article refers to her “generosity and grace” in helping a fellow graduate with a difficult thesis.  This seems to be typical in articles written about female scientists.   Her kind-hearted nature is mentioned above her contributions to the thesis.  It also mentions in the education section that her and her husband never had kids.  It is difficult for me to understand why this is included in her Wikipedia page, let alone the education section.  We also learn about the relationship she had with her husband.  The article gives details of their 3 year distant relationship, when the married and, once again, the fact they had no children together. This information should be omitted from the page, as it serves no purpose. 
I did enjoy the Contributions to Science section.  Her title as “America’s best neuroscientist” by CNN in 2001 as well as how her findings have helped neuroscience flourish is the primary objective of the section.  It is specifically mentioned that Goldman-Rakic broke down the gender barriers within her field in a time when women were not likely to succeed. Her success was never attributed to the work of a man.  However, the article mentioned several times that Goldman-Rakic “was not alone” in her findings. Although the names of other scientists were never mentioned, the writer felt it necessary to include that she was not alone in the contributions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.206.10 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patricia Goldman-Rakic Article 

message: The section Contributions to science is very disorganized and repetitive. It also appears to have some quotes without the quotation marks: from single cells to…how cells communicated with each other to how primates behaved and I think this substantial increase in the number of published works .... For this reason I have downgraded its rating to C class. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions to science section

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0896627303006858/1-s2.0-S0896627303006858-main.pdf?_tid=14183ee0-4bbb-11e3-a15b-00000aacb362&acdnat=1384275442_7b620771477fcffa8ebf7240b89615a0 http://vq.vassar.edu/issues/2005/01/beyond-vassar/biology-memory.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  RockMagnetist (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed