This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Big thank you to everyone that reviewed this article and helped me make it better! I've tried to get the bulk of your suggestions done, and any future critiques are welcome.
Matthew Czerwonka ( talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
2. Article size: 0
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs: 1
5. Links: 1
6. Responsive to comments: N/A
7. Formatting: 1
8. Writing: 1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
_______________
Total: 8 out of 20
Emily Croft ( talk) 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
information seems to be up-to-date with what is available sources-wise, but definitely in need of more information in order to make this topic well-rounded.
2. Article size: 0
<8,000 bytes, which is less than the minimum required
3. Readability: 1
this article is a bit wordy and has some pretty lengthy sentences as explanations of concepts, would help to shorten those and make the points more concise and clear at times. (example: The death of neurons is compounded by the fact that neurons do not undergo mitosis unless very specific conditions are met; not only are the cells removed, but they are also not replaced by new neurons). I think a much more concise sentence would make this point that is reached at the end of this sentence a lot more clear
4. Refs:0
less than the minimum required number of references, not generally cited well at all, and the citations in the text are all only primary sources without another paper to back up the primary source claims
5. Links: 1
there are some links present, but a lot more could be added to help the understandability and overall wikipedia connection of this article - like in vivo and in vitro perhaps? those are very often confused and likely would be helpful and beneficial links to include
6. Responsive to comments: 0
no comments from wikipedians currently other than peer reviews, but no edits done to show responsiveness to review posted 3 days ago
7. Formatting: 1
headings are not appropriately styled for wikipedia - need to be all lowercase aside from first word - see
WP:HEADINGS
8. Writing: 1
The writing is good grammatically, but the readibality (as mentioned above) is difficult. Another example of this is the entire section about difficulties & limitations - it is very wordy and lengthy to explain why a brain model is complex. I think a lot less "fluff" would be very beneficial in getting to the point of why this is a difficult model to achieve
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
they are in need of a lot of improvements, first meeting the minimum requirements, but then further adding and contributing to the fullness of wikipedia with this article in order to make it really outstanding.
_______________
Total: 7 /20
Katie Cottrell (
talk) 9:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 0
- It's about 7,976 bytes. Needs additional content
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 0
- Needs more references.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
- No comments found in the talk pages.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
-There is room for improvement. Requires some more info for the final submission. Pictures, graphs, tables, charts would help with better understanding of the subject
_____________________
Total: 14/20
NiayeshRahimiCortese (
talk)
20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Big thank you to everyone that reviewed this article and helped me make it better! I've tried to get the bulk of your suggestions done, and any future critiques are welcome.
Matthew Czerwonka ( talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
2. Article size: 0
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs: 1
5. Links: 1
6. Responsive to comments: N/A
7. Formatting: 1
8. Writing: 1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
_______________
Total: 8 out of 20
Emily Croft ( talk) 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
information seems to be up-to-date with what is available sources-wise, but definitely in need of more information in order to make this topic well-rounded.
2. Article size: 0
<8,000 bytes, which is less than the minimum required
3. Readability: 1
this article is a bit wordy and has some pretty lengthy sentences as explanations of concepts, would help to shorten those and make the points more concise and clear at times. (example: The death of neurons is compounded by the fact that neurons do not undergo mitosis unless very specific conditions are met; not only are the cells removed, but they are also not replaced by new neurons). I think a much more concise sentence would make this point that is reached at the end of this sentence a lot more clear
4. Refs:0
less than the minimum required number of references, not generally cited well at all, and the citations in the text are all only primary sources without another paper to back up the primary source claims
5. Links: 1
there are some links present, but a lot more could be added to help the understandability and overall wikipedia connection of this article - like in vivo and in vitro perhaps? those are very often confused and likely would be helpful and beneficial links to include
6. Responsive to comments: 0
no comments from wikipedians currently other than peer reviews, but no edits done to show responsiveness to review posted 3 days ago
7. Formatting: 1
headings are not appropriately styled for wikipedia - need to be all lowercase aside from first word - see
WP:HEADINGS
8. Writing: 1
The writing is good grammatically, but the readibality (as mentioned above) is difficult. Another example of this is the entire section about difficulties & limitations - it is very wordy and lengthy to explain why a brain model is complex. I think a lot less "fluff" would be very beneficial in getting to the point of why this is a difficult model to achieve
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
they are in need of a lot of improvements, first meeting the minimum requirements, but then further adding and contributing to the fullness of wikipedia with this article in order to make it really outstanding.
_______________
Total: 7 /20
Katie Cottrell (
talk) 9:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 0
- It's about 7,976 bytes. Needs additional content
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 0
- Needs more references.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
- No comments found in the talk pages.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
-There is room for improvement. Requires some more info for the final submission. Pictures, graphs, tables, charts would help with better understanding of the subject
_____________________
Total: 14/20
NiayeshRahimiCortese (
talk)
20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)