Talk:Binocular neurons

Peer Review 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size: 1, just short of the minimum. 3. Readability: 1, The article is very technical and I had difficulty understanding the topic at all. I would suggest simpler explanations for laypeople. 4. Refs: 2 5. Links: 1, In the beginning of the article, the amount of links are great, but towards the end there are hardly any links to other wiki pages. 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting: 2, some pictures would be a great addition. 8. Writing: 1, some grammatical errors and typos. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 10. Outstanding?: 2, Overall, this article is dense with information, which is good, but I think a lot of it needs more explanation. _______________ Total: 16 out of 20 AshleyHardy (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Increased the length of the article. Rather than simplifying the explanations or jargon involved in the article I created many links to other articles so that a reader could investigate questions they had on their own. Additionally, many links in general were added to the article to assist with understanding. Pictures were added, and many grammatical and spelling errors were corrected. Williamjhendry (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

_______________ Total: 16 out of 20 KelseyGratton (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Quality of Information: 2
 * 2) Article size: 1 *Need about 1,000 more bytes to hit the minimum for article size
 * 3) Readability: 2
 * 4) Refs: 1 *Function paragraph and Stereo Model need more references.  Also, only a couple references are from the past few years - all the others are fairly old.
 * 5) Links: 2
 * 6) Responsive to comments: 2 *Been less than 24 hours
 * 7) Formatting: 2
 * 8) Writing: 1 *Lots of grammar errors; Consider re-doing History paragraph to be in chronological order
 * 9) Used real name or has real name on Use TALK page: 2
 * 10) Outstanding?: 1 *Overall fairly good article, consider adding in media (pictures, videos) to keep it more interesting.  Once everything is fixed this will be a great article.

Increased length of article. Added more references for the Stereo model section. Additionally, some more recent articles were added to bolster credibility of the article. Re-orded History section to be in chronological order. Added pictures. Williamjhendry (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

_______________ Total: 16 out of 20 Kathleen Heller (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Quality of Information: 2
 * 2) Article size: 1 It is just a little short of the 15,000 minimum
 * 3) Readability: 2
 * 4) Refs: 1 You need to fix the formatting so that it will link to the PubMed page
 * 5) Links: 2
 * 6) Responsive to comments: 2
 * 7) Formatting: 2
 * 8) Writing: 1 *just needs some final proof reading
 * 9) Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
 * 10) Outstanding?: 1

Increased length of article. Added PubMed links to all references that have them. Proof read much of the article. Williamjhendry (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews! Williamjhendry (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)