Talk:Walle Nauta

{{Hi! I'm doing a secondary review on your article! I really liked how you tied in the conflict of the regions Nauta was living in with the scientific/education background information. It made the article even more interesting to read, and I think it is important to mention the conflicts and tensions that were happening throughout his early medical/research career, since these events definitely impacted his research. Like when you mentioned he had to use his wife's breast milk for his lab rats since it was almost impossible to access the necessary supplies; that is both interesting (kinda weird) and important to say for the purpose of the article! Good job!}}Delrosemcp (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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): 7826macfarm, AllysCartwright, Youngn212.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I really enjoyed reading about Dr. (?) Nauta, I think that this article has an excellent information and conveys it in a well-structured manner. I am especially intrigued by Dr. Nauta's personal life - this article chronicles his early life and career as a neuroscientist and anatomist very well. I have a few minor suggestions that might help with some clarification. First, be sure to note that Dr. Nauta is in fact a medical doctor (by his name in the intro paragraph add "M.D." - the article notes he attended medical school and received his degree). Also, while it may be difficult to find, an image of his novel staining technique might serve as a great addition to the article. Finally, if other individuals that were mentioned have Wiki pages, it would be good to add links to these pages as well. Overall great article, as the reader I was familiarized with the important aspects of Dr. Nauta's life and with the information provided, I had an easy time looking deeper into some of the topics. Best, BISCquick (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hi! I am doing a secondary review for your Wikipedia article. I think you guys explained the history of Walle Nauta really well however, I think the section that is labeled "move to united states" shouldn't be a separate section. I think it would fit well in the early career section following the start of his first important research. I do also agree with others that more pictures would help however, I did stay engaged without them because the article was well written. Other than this I think the article is very helpful in understanding Mr. Nauta, good job!

Secondary Review

Hello, I'm doing a secondary review of your Wikipedia article. The background and history section is very detailed and interesting and gives the reader an understanding of the character and motivation of your assigned scientist, Dr. Nauta. I think a little more detail on the research that Dr. Nauta participated in other than the creation of the silver staining technique would give more information on the type of research he focused on and other contributions to science. Overall very interesting and well put together article! Thank you! Lvmubio (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I really liked the research/recognition part of your article - it was laid out nicely and easy to follow. Two main suggestions I would have would be to include a photo or two more just to give some more color to the page and keep the reader invested in the great information that you guys have. Another recommendation I would have is to break up the first part of the page that doesn't have a header into categories like "early life" or "education and professional career" or something like that. As of right now it's just a lot of text, and I think breaking it up would help! Overall, I really liked the article and thought you guys did a great job! Alyne123 (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hey!! I am doing a secondary review on your article. I thought your page was well written and was easy to understand. I thought it was very interesting how his main contributions was working with rats and how he used his wife's breast milk to feed the rats which was very weird but important to know. I do agree with @Alyne123: in adding more pictures just so we can get more visuals along with his life and his silver staining. Overall I thought the article on Walle Nauta was very readable and I enjoyed learning about his life and contributions to the science community! Alau0624 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, I thought I'd throw my two cents in here as a long-time Wikipedia editor. This rewrite has a lot of good qualities. It brings together a lot of material from good sources.

I agree with @Alyne123: that it should be structured better -- I've made a stab at that.

There were a few issues with the new content:

• It didn't have an introductory paragraph giving the basics, and telling us why he was important. The existing first paragraph was actually about right, and I don't see why you removed it. On Wikipedia, we try to improve the existing content, not replace it wholesale. I recognize that the existing article was very short and sketchy, but it still had some good qualities.
• You didn't follow standard Wikipedia formatting, e.g., using boldface for the topic in the first sentence, and using straight quotes rather than curly quotes (I prefer curly quotes myself, but...). This is pretty trivial stuff, but if you'd just kept the original first paragraph, ....
• It's rather amazing that the new text never mentioned that he was an Institute Professor at MIT, which is a great honor, and again, was already covered in the existing lead paragraph.
• Biographical Memoirs is not the full title of the journal; I've put what I think the full title is, but you ought to check that....
• It's generally better to give ref's meaningful names (e.g. the author name) than call them :1 etc.
• You used anachronistic names for places. Nauta was certainly not born in Indonesia, which didn't exist in 1916. And I don't think that North Sumatra existed as an administrative unit -- I think it might have been the Deli Sultanate under the Dutch -- but I don't know.
• "With tensions high in that region due to the war" is a funny way of putting things -- they were under brutal German occupation! But the source doesn't say that he "became a practicing physician in order to have an extra sense of security in a time of great hardship for the Dutch citizens". This may all be true, but we avoid guessing people's motivations (cf. WP:OR and in particular WP:SYNTH).
• The details of Dina Dasberg's family don't seem to add anything to our understanding of Nauta, so I've removed them.
• We try to keep the tone encyclopedic. This isn't a memorial minute, so we don't say things like he had "an awesome influence" or "In respect and admiration of his work".
• Many hyperlinks were lost from the version before this one -- again, we try to build on the existing article, not replace it.

Anyway, overall, a nice contribution! I look forward to your continued contributions to Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC) PS I took Nauta's introductory brain science ("Psychology") class at MIT in the 1970's and started this article in 2005. --Macrakis (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: This is part of a class assignment (we are doing former Presidents of the Society for Neuroscience) and it is not quite complete. My students will be finished with their reviews and edits in a couple of weeks and should have put that at the top of the talk page to encourage others to wait with edits. I found Nauta's connection to the Dutch East Indies particularly interesting as my Dad grew up there (well at least until the end of WWII). Thank you for your edits and comments. MMBiology (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@MMBiology: Thanks for the response. I'm a great supporter of using Wikipedia editing in classrooms, to benefit both the students and Wikipedia.

My main concern in this case was that the edits completely replaced the existing content, and in the process of doing that, lost content as well as formatting and links (see my comments above for details). On WP, contributions should be incremental and cumulative. --Macrakis (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello! Overall, I really enjoyed reading your article on Walle Nauta. The lead paragraph is only a few sentences, so I think it would be beneficial to give more information in that opening paragraph to give some general introductory material for the reader to have before diving into the rest of the article. To now go through the 6 main aspects of a good article, to start off I believe this article was very well written. I thought the sections were well thought out, and concise. One thing about the layout I would consider changing is how you had a header that says "Move to the United States", and then many subsections under it. There is some information under the title "Move to the United States" that is discussing before he was in the United States, such as in the research section when mentioning when he obtained his degree. I believe it would help the flow of the article to eliminate the "Move to the United States" title, and move that information to the section above since there is already a sentence mentioning when he moved to the United States. Possibly the section named "Education and Early Career" can be retitled to "Education and Career".

I believe this article is verifiable with no original research. After looking through all of the sources, they are sufficient secondary sources and are from reliable sources. There is one video interview of Walle Nauta listed, but I believe this is not a problem because the rest of the sources are secondary. I had trouble following source number 5, listed as The Righteous Among the Nations Database. I was having trouble finding where the information that was cited was coming from on this website, possibly a more direct link to the specific page on that website could be helpful. I also do not see a link for source number 3, which seems to be the same as one of the external references from the "Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences", but I am unsure if this is the same source or not. Possibly the external references and references section could be made more clear in order to understand where the external references come into play in this article

This article is broad in coverage and does a good job of explaining what is important without getting into too much detail that could be difficult for the average reader to understand.

This article is also neutral, it states facts about the life, career, and research of Walle Nauta and nothing is opinion based or bias. This article seems to be stable as well.

There is an illustration within this page, which is a photo of Walle Nauta. This photo has a copyright status attached, which is shown when clicking on the image. This leads to show that it is in the creative commons. A problem I see that was brought up by other users and has been flagged for deletion below on the talk page was that you claimed the photo as your own, which I see when I click on the photo, so it may not meet the proper criteria for it to be published on Wiki. This photo does not include a caption, so this could be good to include if all copyright statuses were met properly. Possibly just including his name as the caption would be sufficient. I am unsure if there is a picture of the Nauta Silver Staining Technique available, but maybe that could be included.

I chose to review source number 7, "Application of Silver Degeneration Stains for Neurotoxicity Testing". This is a secondary source because it is a review article that was written by another author, not Walle Nauta, and it references work done by Walle Nauta. Pubmed also verifies that this is a review, as well as it being stated within the paper itself. It is found in a reputable journal "Toxicologic Pathology". The only concern I have for this review is that it is from 2000, but since this review focuses on this history of different techniques, it may be sufficient for information on Nauta's technique. I found all of the internal citation to be accurate in getting information from that source. Possibly another internal citation could come after the sentence explaining Wallerian degeneration. I see that this source has a lot of history on different scientists' contributions, but the authors did a good job of taking key relevant information.

Overall, great job with this page! I really enjoyed reading it and learning about Walle Nauta.

--NCBiology (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@NCBiology:, you seem to be evaluating the contributions of a student (@7826macfarm:). But your comments above show that you were looking at a later version, where other editors (including me) had changed various things (outlined in my comments above). I'd think you should be evaluating the article as 7826macfarm left it. You can see that a number of things have changed since then. --Macrakis (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@NCBiology: Thank you for the good suggestions. We will eliminate the "Move to the United States" section and combine it with the section above. For source number 5, I think there was an error in citing it in Wikipedia, as it was supposed to cite a specific page of the website. We will update that so it is correctly cited. For source number 3 we will also recite that to make it more clear. We already tried to find a picture of the Nauta stain, but were unsuccessful, though it was a good suggestion. 7826macfarm (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

The beginning lead section was very short. When people go to Wikipedia they should get an overview of the whole Wiki page from the top lead section. I personally would’ve added more such as including what specifically Walle studies and some of his recognition and awards. At least including that he has some recognition's and awards so then people know that's something important about Walle and then they can scroll down to see more about that. #1) I thought the article was well written with a lot of clarity and simplicity. It was in terms where anyone can understand it. The authors did a great job of adding hyperlinks to words that were more complicated that not every person would know or understand. The page is organized. I think that research should get its own section and the same for recognition and awards. These are pretty significant aspects of Walle’s life and I personally would have made them their own section not a subsection. This article overall was easy to follow and read which is the most important part so I think with some minor changes it is a great article. #2) All of the reviews are secondary except for one of them. I noticed that source four is a primary source since it is an interview with Walle. The information in the interview is coming directly from Walle which could be considered biased. All the other sources are reports on results of Walle’s life or research analyzed by others making them less biased. The citations were done correctly, putting the citation right after the sentence in which they got the information from. All of the secondary sources seemed reliable since they came from reputable websites and research journals. There were many different citations included throughout the page and I did not find any source of plagiarism. #3) The authors were very concise with the information about Walle. I think all the information reported was important and they did a good job of conveying it to the reader. However, I do think they could have gone more in depth in certain areas such as research and the leading paragraph. A contributions section for Walle would be nice to see since he has done so much and I think a colleague's section would be nice to see the different research projects he has worked on and with what other scientists. As I stated above I think it is organized but I personally would have made research and the recognition and awards its own separate section since they are so important. I appreciated the simple wording from the research section. If there was a word that a non scientist wouldn't know they made sure to make an external link or explain it which is important. It made it easy to follow for anyone reading. #4) The authors did a great job with keeping this article neutral. I didn’t feel as though there were any biased viewpoints. They were very straight to the point and factual. #5) The flow of the content was very natural. It was easy to follow and I didn’t notice any significant difference in writing. #6) This article included one picture of Walle Nauta at the top of the page and properly tagged from the wikicommons. Overall I believe this article was well written and just needs some minor changes and details. The different sections did a great job of giving a nice background and overview of Walle and also going a little in depth about what Walle studies for research. I chose to review their secondary source #1 the New York Times article. This source was used in their leading section introducing Walle. I thought it was a great secondary source because it is a reliable one. When you go to the New York Times website there is a note at the top about their archive and how they do not alter, edit, or update them to preserve the article as original. This shows that it does not get tampered with and that this reliable source has not changed since they posted it. The information about Walle that they wrote in Wikipedia is found in this article and was cited properly. The author cited source one correctly and did a great job overall. BrittanyMU (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@BrittanyMU: Thank you for the comments. I am glad that you thought the information was concise and ready for people with non-science backgrounds to understand, that was our goal! We have changed the organization and format because we also agree that the research and awards deserve its own section. Thank you for the hep! (talk)

Primary Review

Hello! Overall, your article feels like a good start. The introduction feels very short, which is a bit strange because his life seems to have been very interesting. I think you should briefly include something about his life during the war or a quick sentence or two about the silver staining technique. The introduction should give the reader a sense of the person they are reading about. You could also include something about the awards he was given. Also I noticed that there were no pictures in your article. Finding images of someone can be kind of tricky, but they don't only have to be of the person. Are there any pictures of the silver staining technique? If you can't find any, maybe try including pictures of MIT. A picture or two can really help the article bulk up a bit.

I think the early life paragraph seemed interesting, I wish there was a little bit more there going in depth about his family's escape. However, I understand that it can be difficult to get secondary sources on information about someone who was born over a century ago. In terms of the early career portion, I think you did a good job. I feel like a reader would be able to understand and appreciate the things that Nauta went through.

For the move to the US portion of the article, I do think that it gets a bit more difficult to read. As a people with a scientific background, I'm sure we all fully understand everything, but I don't think that your average joe would be able to keep up. It is clear that you guys as writers understood what you were writing about, but I wish you would break it down a bit more. Also, I think you should break up that section or change the header. Maybe instead of " Move to the United States" change it to something about his contributions. The move wasn't the most important part, what he did was.

I feel as though the article is pretty well written and verifiable with no original research. It is clear that you all understood the articles that you read. Overall, the article feels neutral. Walle Nauta's life went through a series of twists and turns, however it doesn't feel like the writers are trying to get me to root for him, so to speak.

I chose to review their secondary source #6, the MIT article on Nauta's death. Considering the fact that the article was written after his death, there is no possible conflict of Walle Nauta possibly writing the article. The article was actually published in 1994 and brought onto the MIT news website. The MIT article was referenced a few times towards the end of this article. The writers correctly used this source; the points in the article where it was referenced coincide with the information stated in the MIT article.HBGoggans (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@HBGoggans: Thank you for your input, as a group we are re-reading the essay to make sure that every important aspect is written so that everyone can understand the information, and I have also added more to the introductory of the page to make it more interesting and grasp the attention of readers. Thanks again for the input!! (talk)

Photo

@7826macfarm:, you added the photo File:Walle_nauta.jpg to Wikimedia, claiming that it is your "own work" and that you are the copyright holder, both of which are obviously untrue. The photo is labeled "MIT Museum", so you need to check what license the MIT Museum offers for it. It is perfectly possible that it offers it under a Creative Commons license, but you need to prove that. In the meantime, I have tagged that file as a copyright violation and it is liable to speedy deletion.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and your instructors should have made that clear to you. --Macrakis (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Instructors: @MMBiology:, @Helaine (Wiki Ed):, @Elysia (Wiki Ed): --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Macrakis, thank you for the ping. We have a training here that instructs our student editors how to upload images and media. Our training explicitly states on slide 12 "Never try to work around these questions by claiming an image is yours if it isn't. That's a copyright violation." 7826macfarm please carefully review this training and please do not claim others' work as your own in the future. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:34, 15 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:

• Walle nauta.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Reference number 4 and 6 are the same - this needs fixing. MMBiology (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)