Talk:Burst suppression

- 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size:1 meets the requirements but barely 3. Readability:2 4. Refs:2 5. Links:1 try to include links to pages that have not been created yet 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting:2 8. Writing:2 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2 10. Outstanding?:2 a good article! just needs a little bit more work _______________ Total:   18   out of 20 - Arnabrchakrab (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1 -The writing seems a bit much for a general audience. Everything is hyperlinked, but a general audience doesn't want to have to look through and define every term. I am thinking a veeeery general audience though, so perhaps your article is geared more towards the educated audience. Still, I think 10th grade should be the level we're aiming for, or somewhere around there.

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1 -The associations section seems a little weird and not encyclopedic. Maybe explain what each of these are in a paragraph or with subsections instead of a list.

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 -Overall, a well written article that is well cited with recent publications. I would try to simplify some of the jargon and work on a bit of formatting. Then this could be a great article. _______________

Total:   17  out of 20

Tyler Chappel (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

-


 * 1) Quality of Information: 2
 * 2) Article size: 2
 * 3) Readability: 2
 * 4) Refs: 2
 * 5) Links: 2
 * 6) Responsive to comments: 2
 * 7) Formatting: 1
 * 8) Writing: 2
 * 9) Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
 * 10) Outstanding?: 1

Total: 18 out of 20

The formatting was awkward in places (mainly the "Associations" bullets in the History section) but not terrible. The quality of the information is great, but I'd imagine it's difficult for a layperson with little background in neuroscience to read. A slight simplification of the Characteristics section would certainly help, but is by no means necessary. The article size is in danger of not meeting assignment requirements with any edits, but I'd suggest not adding fluff even if it is required to hit the 15k mark.