Talk:Cortical remapping

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!

SarahReed54 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajeevan Poorna

 * 1) Quality of Information: 2

15,652 bytes The article was readable and easy to follow. However, the user could afford to put in more pictures. Decent number of articles and credible sources. There were many links that made it easy for a person to reference things they didn't know about. There were no recent comments. The user could have more separation with sections and subsections since the article was very detailed. The writing was excellent, easy to follow, and detailed. Username is a real name. Very good article, but make sure to put more pictures and detailed subsections/sections to make it outstanding Total: 17 out of 20 --poornarajeevan (talk)19:30, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)
 * 1) Article size: 2
 * 1) Readability: 1
 * 1) Refs: 2
 * 1) Links: 2
 * 1) Responsive to comments: 2
 * 1) Formatting: 1
 * 1) Writing: 2
 * 1) Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
 * 1) Outstanding?: 1


 * 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!

SarahReed54 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bahar Rahsepar
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

8. Writing: 2
 * 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.WikiProject Neuroscience
 * Also categorizing various sections and sub-sections would help the article.

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.

Total: 18  out of 20

Bahar.rahsepar (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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!

SarahReed54 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)