Talk:William D. Willis Jr.

Secondary Review

Hello authors. I thought your article was very easy to understand and got right to the point of a general idea of what this neuroscientist studies and does research on along with background information of the neuroscientist. I thought the research section was developed very well and was very specific on the type of research performed throughout his career. One suggestion I have would be for the publications section, would be to add a general summary of his most famous publications because right now it is a little general with just a number of publications he has done throughout his life span. Also, in the academic career section, it could be helpful for the publication of the book to put the title of the book and what the book addresses throughout it. Overall, your article was very organized and had a nice flow to it. --AMMarquette (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a good article. I like the detailed information you have about his research as well as including information about his legacy. Your headings and information is concise. A recommendation for you to consider is that you could write his Honors and Awards in a list format. That way they would be easier to read through quickly and possibly look more organized. Additionally, pictures would be great but I know a lot of people had trouble uploading pictures without copyright. Overall, I like the scope of information you included in the article.

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): Hungrytwin, BNunez13, AlyssaSNeuro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary review

The article had a nice flow to it and was easy understand. In the research section, I really liked the way that you included the process he used to study pain and explained it in a way that readers like myself can understand. I also liked the way that it all simplified so that we can all understand the main goals of his studies. One suggestion I would make would be to add some background information about his early life growing up if there is any you are able to find. Otherwise great work, I enjoyed reading it. --MULuna (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello Authors. There were just a few minor things that have the potential for improvement in your article. The first was found in the Research section. A couple of sentences in when you begin explaining the procedure of his research you shift from writing in the past tense to present tense and then later revert back to past tense. Try to keep the tense the same throughout the article. The second suggestion I had was also in the Research section and was regarding grammar. Towards the end when you talk about pancreatitis, the wording is very hard to understand. Try rewriting those couple sentences to make it easier for the reader to understand. My next suggestion is to maybe add a couple of William's most famous publications in your publications section. This gives the reader the opportunity to easily access some of his work right from the article. I really liked the Awards and Legacy sections. That was an excellent addition to your article. The final suggestion is to maybe add the person's date of birth (and death if they are no longer living)so the reader has a better understanding of how old your person was when they did certain things mentioned in your article. Overall, nicely done! ~Sawyer Mentink

Secondary Review

Overall, I really enjoyed this article! I believe you all did a very good job making the article easy to read and understand. I think the introduction paragraph could be extended just a little, to provide some background knowledge on Willis and his life. I thought you did a great job writing your research section, and made it very easy to understand. A suggestion here could be stating a few more specific examples of his experiments, if not too complicated. I think the legacy section was a great addition! Good job. LCneurobiology (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I think you guys did a great job at giving a simplified explanation of his research that would allow anyone to understand his field of study, and the explanation on his experiments was a good detail to add. This article was good because it taught me more about the foundations of pain research. I think adding in some specifics to his publications such as certain books that he did major work on would be beneficial to add. Overall, Great work!

Secondary Review

Hello! I think the article was easy to read and follow. I do wish there was more included in the introduction just to get a more direct and clear idea of who William D. Willis Jr. is without having to read the whole article. I also think that some sentences could be worded a bit better and some of the sections could have included just a bit more. I do appreciate the fact that it's very to the point and did otherwise enjoy reading. MUscience1998 (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello! Firstly I would like to say that I like how the page is formatted, and I think the sections are both well chosen and titled. I would say that separating the sections further into paragraphs may help readability, and that the introduction could be more thorough. though predominately well written, there are moments where the writing could be smoother, especially in the research section.

I also dont know where to fact check this, but was he truly sponsored by the National Institute of Health for his entire career? if so a citation would be helpful for that(in publications). There also seems to be room to add images to the page, an image of the person would be nice, but in not perhaps the logo of one of the schools he attended or of the National Institute of Health?

Finally for the references, the two references to scientific papers (3 and 4) seem to be primary, not secondary sources, are there no review papers that reference his work?

Z-VanS (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Authors Response

Hello reviewers. We appreciate your input and suggestions on improving our article. We have made changes to the research section to fix any grammatical errors or confusion on the topic. The introduction was also extended, and edits were made to the honors and awards section. Unfortunately, limited resources were available, and we were unable to find photos of Willis. However, we did add other relevant photos. In response to proof of Willis being funded by NIH, there was already a link included in our references that states this. Again, resources were very limited when it comes to articles. We had difficulty finding reviews of his published work. With that being said, we were unable to locate secondary reviews of his work. We appreciate all the suggestions and we have implemented them as best as we could in our final edits. --AlyssaSNeuro (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:William D. Willis

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)