Template:Did you know nominations/William T. Greenough

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

William T. Greenough[edit]

(

)

... that William T. Greenough is "one of the towering figures in neuroscience" for showing that new synaptic connections form in the brain through life in response to enrichment and learning? Source: "Bill was one of the towering figures in neuroscience... His work led the way in illuminating experience-related plasticity in the mammalian brain, overcoming early views that sensory and motor systems of the brain were largely fixed very early in life, showing instead that the development of new synapses occurred in response to environmental enrichment and learning."

Reviewed: Furra

Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC).

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: The article is long enough, new enough, and well written. I think the hook should be revised to have wider appeal; I'll append my own effort below. The hook's quotation is from a distinguished colleague, not a true third party, but on balance I think it's acceptable. The issue that I'm noting here is the article's heavy citation of primary sources (Greenough's own articles, etc.) as well as University of Illinois sources for its accolades. I've edited one citation to clarify that it actually references still another of Greenough's contributions. This makes the article look a bit like original research. I think some of the primary sources should be deleted or annexed as "Further reading", thus favoring the secondary sources more clearly. The issue is not major - there are sufficient secondary sources cited, and Greenough was undoubtedly very distinguished. Finally, here's an alternate hook:

ALT1:... that William T. Greenough is called a "towering figure in neuroscience" for showing that the structure of the brain changes throughout one's entire life, and not just in infancy? Easchiff (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Easchiff: Thanks for the feedback. I tried hard to find secondary sources as well as primary sources so that people can read the research critically. It was a challenging article to write because his work is so central that he's a coauthor on many of the book chapters and review articles that would usually be used as secondary sources about the field. I wanted a hook that would give an idea of just how significant his work was. As an alternative to the more personal "towering figure" quotes, how does this sound? I think I may actually prefer it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

ALT2:... that William T. Greenough overturned the idea that the brain was an anatomically static structure by showing that synapse formation can occur throughout life and is key to memory and learning? Source: "William T. Greenough is one of the world's leading investigators of experience-related neuronal plasticity in the mammalian brain. He has been the major proponent of the hypothesis that the key element in learning and memory is the formation or retraction of synapses between neurons. ... When he began his career, the adult brain was thought to be an anatomically static structure. Now it is commonly accepted that rapid synapse formation can occur throughout life, and the hypothesis that synapse formation lies at the core of behavioral plasticity has come to the fore. William Greenough's research forms the central body of work supporting this view." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll approve ALT1, which I prefer because I think the typical reader of Wikipedia's home page won't be familiar with phrases such as "anatomically static" and "synapse formation". The paucity of secondary sources is an interesting observation. Thanks for your fine article. Easchiff (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)