Talk:Joseph T. Coyle

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): MULuna, Delrosemcp, Mwetzell, LCneurobiology.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I enjoyed reading about Joseph and his research. The article is well written and I liked that there were pictures included on the side. However, I think you can add a little more to the introduction paragraph. --Vale9616 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I liked how concise this article is, however I think it could use some more detail on his research. A discussion on the papers he helped publish (if he did) could be helpful. AllysCartwright (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your feedback! I agree, so we added more the research section! Delrosemcp (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article – I thought you all did a great job of being clear and concise in describing Coyle’s contributions and research in a very understandable way. I liked how you informed us of how he began his interest in his education and thought it was inspiring that he didn’t stray from his path of wanting to understand the biology behind mental illness, specifically schizophrenia. --Alisand16 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Alisand16

Secondary review

This article flowed very well all throughout and it was very easy to read. When reading about his research, I found it very easy to follow and understand because each sentence connected the information together and helped me understand what his research was about although I did not have much knowledge about it. I learned that glutamate plays a large role in schizophrenia as it causes structural abnormalities within the brain. His awards and honors were also organized very nicely in a list along with the years Dr. Coyle received them. I suggest simplifying the first three sentences in the Early life section because it sounded a little awkward due to how many times “physician” has been mentioned. Overall, this article was written very nicely and I enjoyed learning about his research. -- Kit-Kat834 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Kit-Kat834

Hi, thanks for your feedback. We made a few changes to the Early Life section and took into consideration your suggestion on simplifying the first few sentences. MULuna (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

I think that the vast majority of the article is well written, but there are a few specific things I would change. One of the changes is when you discuss how Coyle feels about certain things, "As a young child he didn’t expect to become a physician" I think that these descriptions of personal feelings are extraneous and should be removed. Some other instances of this occurring are when you talk about Coyle's feelings about sports. I really like the description of his early life; it flow very well and tells a clear story. For the "academia and careers" section, I would organize it in a chronological way instead of going from later in his career to earlier in his career. The research section seems a little choppy, it offers a brief description of coyle's research, but I think it would be incredibly helpful to expand more on each of these areas. The last two sections of the article about his awards and memberships are good. I really like the formatting of the awards section; the information is very clear and identifiable. You don't have a picture of coyle, so one could improve it, but I understand if it is difficult to get one. I do really like the other media displayed on the page: the pictures of things described in the article. I think that you may need more references to make the article feel more reliable, and also get more variety in the information presented.

For the review of one of the references, I noticed that you do not have any peer reviewed secondary sources that would help describe and define Coyle's research. So, I went and looked at reference 5 and noticed that it is just a link to websites home page. I am not sure where the data that you cite in your article was found on this website, hopefully you could also cite the authors and the creators of the website, and more identifying info on where the information was retrieved. I also looked at Reference 4 because I feel like I could not contribute enough just by looking at reference 5, and I think it is a good source of information. Reference 4 does appear to be a reliable secondary source and gives a lot of information about Coyle's life. It also provides a lot of information on what can be further researched and expanded upon in the article. There is an entire section that lists every paper that he has published, you could use this information to find out who cited his work and then you would have some reliable secondary sources. I think that the reference itself is good enough, since I can't find any identifying information about the person who wrote the webpage, or when it was published. KevinKicmal (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. We made some changes to remove Coyle's personal feelings in the Early Life section. For the academia and career section, we decided to keep it as is because we didn't want to just have a list of of his careers and education. We appreciate the idea of organizing it in chronological order, but we will try to make it as clear as we can while still making it flow. For the research section we did add more information and expanded more on his research to make it more complete. We were not able to find a picture of him, but if we find one we most definitely will add it. We are looking at our resources and will include more, as for reference 5 we will make sure to link the right page rather than the homepage. MULuna (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I want to start by stating that I thought the article was well written. Especially the research portion was very easy to understand and well explained. I think this is important part of writing a scientific article so that the readers, both scientific or not are able to understand and learn from the article. One critique I would add is I think there is room for more explanation in regards to the different experiments. - Natalie Young

youngn212 22:51, 14 April 2020

Hi, thanks for your feedback. We agree with your critique and added more explanation to the research section! MULuna (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This is a well written article. The sections flowed together well and I really liked the early life section where you talk about what lead him to pursue psychiatry. I also liked how you included pictures for each section. This helped especially for the research section. Showing the comparison between a schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic brain was informative. Another thing I liked was the long list of awards at the end, over all great job.GOC2020 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, I thought this article was very well written. I really liked the amount of detail that was put into the background information, and that you included how he originally became interested in studying schizophrenia. I also thought that you did a very good job describing his research. It was very easy to follow and understand. Cdol97 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary Review

Hello authors. I would like to first point out that this is a good article, informative, and provides necessary information without delving into too much detail. Going off of the good article criteria, 1) This article is well written, easily understood, and legible for a broad audience. One thing I think that can be changed in the writing is that it seems like in some portions of the article, you are writing Coyle's personal opinions. While interesting, this may be better suited for external links than in Wikipedia. For example, the part about Coyle's family being heavily involved in medicine as physicians is good material, but stating that Coyle did not feel pressure or expectations to become a physician seems more suitable for another source other than Wikipedia. Other than a few more positions of Coyle's personal opinion, this article remained factual and informative in the sense of an encyclopedia should be. 2) All of the resources used are verifiable and does not contain any original research. 3) This article is broad in coverage. This article does an excellent job of providing enough information on Coyle's page to leave one satisfied in the information found, while allowing methods to further learning through use of embedded citations and external citations. I found the information of the article to be satisfactory without being overwhelming or underwhelming. I believe this to be a strong point in this article. 4) This article remains neutral in providing factual based information without sway from biases. At no point in the article did I feel like the authors had an agenda other than strictly informing the audience of the individual. 6) The illustrations were helpful and tagged with their copyright status. It would be nice to have a picture of Coyle, but I understand this may not be possible due to copyright issues. Overall, illustrations benefited the article. I chose the first reference for the article. Unfortunately, I was unable to access the research. I am wondering if you were able to and help me navigate viewing the research. I was able to view the abstract and based upon what I saw in the abstract, it is uncertain whether this is a primary or secondary source. To the best of my knowledge, this appears to be a primary source as Coyle is the author and appeared to be the one gathering and looking at the numbers for the research and interpreting it for himself, rather than looking at someone else's interpretations of the numbers. Of course this may be wrong and I am open to discussion about it. Unfortunately I am unable to look at the research to determine whether the information is accurate, although from what I gathered, Coyle proclaims himself his titles and education within the article. Overall, This article is written well. It got the job done of informing the audience of Coyle while briefly describing more information about him in a manner that acts as an encyclopedia. Other than the personal opinionated portions and the resources possibly including primary sources, this was what I would have liked to find when searching for this individual. Thank you for the good read on Joseph T. Coyle! - Owen.patrick4 (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to give so much feedback about our article! I agree with what you said regarding the feelings in the early life section, so we removed those aspects and reworded where necessary! Delrosemcp (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Hi authors! There are a couple areas I would suggest some small changes. The Early Life section includes a lot of personal feelings/details. They feel out of place and I'm also not sure if the source cited at the end of that section backs up those portions. I think it might be better to remove those few sentences or edit the language used. Also, when you talk about the Society of Neuroscience, did you mean the Society for Neuroscience? If so, there's a Wikipedia page that exists for the SfN that you could link to! Otherwise, the article was well written and informative. Laurenbaylor (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your feedback. I agree, so we altered the early life section to get most of the personal feelings out! And I will go correct that and add the link right now! Delrosemcp (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)