This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
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.
Peer Review
Kunal Kambo Puri
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1 The pictures need citations. At least you referenced the first one, but it needs a full citation.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 none except peer-review
7. Formatting: 2 I'm actually not sure if the project banner belongs in "External Links," but at least it's there.
8. Writing: 1 frequent comma errors
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 The article is well-referenced except for the pictures, which were appealing. Other peers have complained about your organization, but I think it's a deliberate, useful choice rather than a mistake. Knowledge depends on research, so it makes sense to organize it that way if necessary, and you've done a poignant and helpful job of reviewing the literature and identifying important points.
Total: 18/20
Also, I cannot believe there's another doctor named Ron Paul. That's funny.
I moved the project banner to my user page. I decided to keep the sections the way they were because I couldn't figure out a way to break them down to make an improvement to the article. Since I got all my images from wiki commons I don't think a specific citation for each is necessary. Thank you for the feedback!
I tried to find relevant images to improve the article and was only able to find a few. I agree that it needed more images too so I hope the ones I have found helped improve the article. I decided to keep the sections the way they were however because I couldn't find a good way to break the sections down to really improve the article. Thank you for the feedback!
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 (no comments posted)
7. Formatting: 1
About the banner to be a contributor to Wikipedia neuroscience project, I guess this banner should go to your user page rather than the article page.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience
Also categorizing various sections and sub-sections would help the article.
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
You did a nice job in terms of your article and had a really interesting topic, but working more on the organization and flow of the sections could further benefit the article and helps it to be outstanding.
Another suggestion, which would not really goes to any of the above categories, is to add the brain that changes itself as a further reading suggestion for the readers.
I moved the banner to my user page and created a further reading section to add The Brain that Changes Itself to it. I did some work on a rephrasing confusing sentences to help increase flow. I decided to keep the sections the way they were however because I couldn't find a way to break then down so it would truly improve the article. Thank you for the feedback!