Talk:Mickey Goldberg

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): Alau0624, 8396propsok, NGalvanMU, Lvmubio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2022 (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:

• Michael Goldberg3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review!

{{Primary Review: There is a brief, effective lead paragraph that informs the reader of who is being discussed in the article, providing both their birth name and the common name they go by, as well as their profession, their current place of employment, and their research focus. 1. The article is well-written. There is a lead section, which I described above. There are appropriate headings indicating a corresponding change in information being provided (i.e. the heading Research is above the section that discuss Mr. Goldberg’s research topics), and there is proper spelling and puncuation. The layout of the article also follows the guidelines, including a table of contents. There are a few “words to watch”, such as when it was stated that Mr. Goldberg was the ‘best student in his class’. The authors also included lists, which provided information concisely. 2. The article contains no original research or plagarism, as far as I could tell. Information in the article is cited with a number corresponding to a properly-formatted source located at the bottom of the article underneath the References header. All of the sources appear to be from credible sites, with some coming from organizations like the NIH and numerous national societies. All of the sources are relevant to the main focus of the article (Mickey Goldberg). 3. The article addresses the main aspects of this topic, including an Early Life section, Education and Career section, followed by Research, Publications and Awards & Honors sections, in this order. These briefly cover the early life, career, and accomplishments of Mr. Goldberg. Personally, I felt the authors went a little too into detail about his research, but some of the readers may find this interesting. 4. Overall, the article is neutral; the authors provide accomplishements and honors in a professional, listed manner, without using any biased language in the process. 5. The last time I checked, like five minutes ago, there was not an “edit war” occuring, and I doubt one will arise, since this article appears to be stable, neutral and accurate. 6. The article does contain relevant media. The authors included pictures ranging from the universities associated with the career of Mr. Goldberg, animations and photos of the model organisms used in Mr. Goldberg’s research, and a photo of a newspaper article discussing one of the awards won by Mr. Goldberg. The photos and animation used were cited properly, and included permission details when applicable. The source I chose to check to ensure it was a secondary source was reference #5. This reference is a research paper co-authored by Mr. Goldberg, however none of the authors of this article participated in this research in any form, making this a secondary source. The authors of this article accurately described the focuses and findings discussed in this paper in their article. Further, the authors in this article did a good job summarizing the information from this reference, so as to not miss information that could have been relevant to the topic of the article. Great work!}}Delrosemcp (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

-Thank you so much for the review!!!!Alau0624 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hi! Right from looking at it, this article is very well laid out. There is lots of information, along with lots of pictures. 1. I believe that your article is incredibly well-written. I didn't see any grammar/spelling issues, and everything flowed very nicely. Everything is properly in its place, and it's all broken up nicely with good amounts of information under each category. Well done! 2. As far as I'm concerned, there was no original research, and everything was cited properly. In addition, there was no plagiarism. When a piece of his research is mentioned, it is credited with where the information is pulled from. All of the citations are formatted correctly at the bottom of the article, all of which appear to be credible. The publications don't have hyperlinks to pdf versions of the texts, but if none are available then the citations provided are sufficient. 3. There is a very broad range of information which spans from early life, to education and career to his research focus. I also liked how you explained things in a way that made it easy for the "at-home" reader to follow along, and could keep up with what Mickey Goldberg is researching. However, it sometimes did get a little bit caught up in the details, so cutting those out might help with the big paragraphs of text the article has. 4. The article is neutral. Instead of listing opinions or biased information, the article states things in a formal way, which makes it a good source for information. 5. As of right now, it is stable, and I doubt any complications will arise. 6. There are lots of good pictures used throughout your article! I like how all of them had captions, and you even had a moving picture which was a cool addition that helped make your article "pop". All of the pictures used were relevant and in their proper place, as well as cited correctly. One comment I would make would be to include a picture of Mickey Goldberg himself, but I know that that you guys had some problems with that so that can be tricky. Everything else was great though! I picked source #4 to evaluate, which is a secondary source. Whenever the article makes a mention of the findings presented in this source, it is cited properly. The article cites #4 numerous times, giving full credit to the author(s). You guys did a good job summarizing what the information in the article presented. You guys did a really good job with this assignment! Alyne123 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

-Thank you so much for reviewing our article!!!!Alau0624 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

-Thank you for your review! We did try to add in a photograph of Dr. Goldberg, but there has been some issues with the citation of a lot of images of him. 8396propsok (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

This is a great article! Doing a brief scroll to see the whole page before reading showed that the section and subsections are well done, along with the pictures, and make it easy to follow along when reading. Overall, I think the article is very well written. I didn’t notice any spelling mistakes but did think a few sentences could have been split/used a semi colon to break them up (they started to become run on sentences). I liked how instead of describing awards/education you listed them – it made it super easy to follow along and was very concise. I looked at all the sources used and did not find any primary sources, so there was no plagiarism. Sources were cited correctly, links were used when possible, and cited in the article in appropriate places as well, giving accurate accreditation when needed. The sources also were credible from scientific journals, association websites, etc. Overall, I think the content covered in the article was well thought out and covered topics important to Michael Goldberg. I like how you started with his background/education, and then lead into his profession and research, then to his publications and awards – the order flowed well. Each section had a good amount of information. However, I think the research section may have had too much general science information and maybe strayed from his studies/findings a bit. If there was less emphasis on the science and mechanisms and more on his exact studies, I think that may be easier for someone of a non-science background to read. The article was written neutrally with the exception of the phrase “best student in the class”. I’m not sure if that was a quote from somewhere but I think it could be phrased differently or cut to leave out any chance of bias. That being said, I don’t think any edit wars will start up over this article since it is well written and neutral. As previously mention, I like the addition of pictures to emphasize and visualize the areas of the brain/eye structure discussed. They are placed well to help break up the text and help the reader understand the content. I would have liked to see a picture of Mr. Goldberg himself, but understand the complications with uploading an image if there isn’t one in the Commons. I chose to look at source #3 to evaluate since it is used quite frequently throughout the article. You give full credit to the authors. It is a secondary article, as it says, “published as a review”, and covers publications by Mr. Goldberg, as well as one of his colleagues, Linus D. Sun. Overall, you guys did a great job and wrote a very good article! Thank you!Alisand16 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Alisand16

-Thank you so much for your review! We checked specifically in the research section about the run-on sentences, and we hope that the sentences that were fixed make the section a bit more clear. We also rewrote the sentence about Dr. Goldberg being the best student in his class in order to sound less bias. There were some issues adding an image of Dr. Goldberg due to some issues citation issues from the sources of the original images. Overall, thank you for your input. 8396propsok (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thought this article was very well done and understandable all throughout. The way each section was set up in a very organized manner made it easier for me to read. The research section had a lot of information about eye movement and focus. I learned about corollary discharge and how anything that we perceive gets signaled to our eyes and to the brain where we decide what kind of movement should respond to it. I also learned more about the lateral intraparietal area and how it is used to target and locate certain things with our eyes. This section included definitions about certain areas and parts of the eyes that were unfamiliar which helped me understand more about the research overall. - Kit-Kat834 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review- Alia Sondalle

Hello Authors! Overall, I think you did a great job! It was an easy read and well worded. I also really love and appreciate the images you have inserted. One thing that I would suggest changing is the Education portion of the page. I think formatting it into a paragraph instead of bullet points would be more appropriate. Or, have a paragraph before the summary bullet points. Overall, great work!!

Secondary Review

Hello, This is written well and is informative. This page gives a great detail of Goldberg's research while maintaining it for a wide breadth of audience. One thing I noticed, while you do a great job at explaining a lot of material, there doesn't seem to be many embedded links which may be helpful for the reader to further learn about a subject. This is obviously better than too many embedded links, but I found myself searching some interesting things on your page outside of Wikipedia to learn further. One last thing is that in the publications section, you say that you have a list of all of his publications sorted by year, but then say that some of the publications are included. I guess I am confused if this is suppose to be a complete list of publications or if it is suppose to highlight some of his publications. Overall, this page is very informative! - Owen.patrick4 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hi authors! Overall, great job on your article. You were very thorough, and I especially appreciated all the background information you provided on Goldberg's personal life. Additionally, I really liked all the images you included. I think with the variety of topics included in your article, some more links could be beneficial. Particularly in regards to some of the pharmaceutical research in his past, some links would be extremely helpful in providing more information and context. Additionally, I would suggest potentially moving the education and career section towards the end of the article, as its placement among the paragraph sections seemed a bit out of place to me. Finally, I think with all the good information you have on Goldberg, adding one to two more sentences to the introduction might help with the flow. Overall, though, great job! -Gabriella Lorance

Secondary Review

Overall, I think this article is very well written (especially the research section). I loved the explanation and pictures that accompanied the tougher topics so that people with minimal science background are still able to understand his importance in the field. Someone above mentioned more embedded links, which I also believe could be really helpful in the research section. I think the background on Goldberg was very well written and sufficient for this type of bibliography. I do think the education section could be written in a paragraph over bullets, and maybe some more details would be able to be included here. I think it was a very well written article and only needs a few minor edits!

HannahPNeuro (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall, I think this article is very well written. I like how the introduction paragraph is short and to the point, but still includes important background information on Goldberg’s life. I think it was interesting how the explanation on how Goldberg became interested in his profession was included. I do agree that there is slight bias with the statement “best in his class” only because I don’t know if this can be proven or not via your sources. I think the education section is well done, but could be easier to read if it were written in a paragraph format. However, I believe having the list format for both the publications and the awards fits well. Your research section was very informational! However, I think that the general background terminology can be taken out, especially in the first paragraph. I believe focusing on the detail of Goldberg’s research experiments would be much more beneficial for this section of the article. I think if you clarify how these experiments reflect his area of study and the goal he has in mind, it would help this area! I also believe this article is neutral and stable for the most part, minus the one suggestion I made previously. Finally, I think all illustration used was relevant. I liked how the moving image is able to show the area of the brain being studied in Goldberg’s research. For the sources, everything seems to be correctly cited and no plagiarism takes place. For my source verification I chose to look at source # 6. This source was a list of Mickey Goldberg’s publications. This is a secondary source, and simply documents Goldberg’s publications and experiments. They did source what was posted on this cite correctly, and I believe they included what was necessary from this source. LCneurobiology (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

-Thank you so much for your review! We've edited the wording choice in the education section and are working to improve our research section. We appreciate your feedback! (Lvmubio (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC))

Primary Review

Hello! The lay out of the article is good and clear to follow. The article right away includes and introduction of Mickey Goldberg and a bit about him. The wording of the first sentence is a little confusing to me, but other than that I thinks it's a good start. The article then goes into the early life of Mickey and introduced his father, which I think could be maybe worded differently just to make a better transition. Other than the way his father was brought up, the early life section was well done. I think the education and career sections could be split up just to make thing a bit more clear and easier to read a long with putting them in a paragraph format. I find the bullet points a bit difficult to read with so much information. For the research section I like how much thought and information was put into this section because I do find it to be one of the most import sections. I also think the pictures were a great touch and was nice to look at with the break down of the research. I think maybe simplifying the research section a bit more would make the article easier to read and follow and including how Mickey directly contributed to this research. For the publications and awards sections I think the bullet point format goes well and is straight to the point. With just a few adjustment I think this article could be really great and is otherwise well done and thought out. MUscience1998 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

-Thank you very much for your feedback. We are working on rewording and simplifying some of our sections to make it easier to understand. We appreciate your suggestions to make our article better! (Lvmubio (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC))

-Thank you for your input on our article. We wanted to keep the research section more focused on the material Dr. Goldberg studied, but we did include more imbedded links, which hopefully clarify some of the confusing material in the research section of this page. 8396propsok (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Add a redirect

I think that there should be a redirect for anyone typing in Michael E. Goldberg since that is his official name but I do not know how to do that. MMBiology (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

MMBiology I've added the redirect you requested! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)