Talk:Dendrin/Georgia Tech Intro to Neuroscience

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

3. Readability:1

4. Refs:2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:1

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

10. Outstanding?:0

_______________

Total:  15     out of 20

I thought that the article was good and very informational. However, I did find the article difficult to read because it was so dense with information. It was not a very approachable article in terms of writing style. Additionally, I thought that some sections of the article were written in a very choppy manner. I was also distracted by various typos and grammatical errors throughout the text. Most of these fixes are minor and should not take much time to fix. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. I would be happy to discuss them with you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19 November 2013

—————————————————————————————————————————

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

3. Readability: 1

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1

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

10. Outstanding? 1

Total:  16     out of 20

I think this was an interesting article and made me want to learn more about neuronal proteins. I think there may have been some scattered typos and there are grammer problems. You will want to remove the primary sources like he talked about in class, although you did have an abundance of resources which is good. Maybe you could combine some of the subtopics since you have so many subtitles. I think there are some wording errors that may produce wrong information such as the dendrin mRNA is rich with dendrites? That sounds like the RNA has dendrites. The wording is a little too technical and you may want to make it a little simpler. Some of the information in the article is not referenced. Connor Beveridge (talk) 22 November 2013

1. Quality of Information:1 There is a decent bit of good information, but a lot of it is repeated throughout the article. I know that the 15k byte requirement is sometimes challenging to reach but I think repeating information multiple times is worse for the article than size.

2. Article size:1 Less than 15K

3. Readability:1 Some parts are hard to follow as they are over powered by the science and research behind it. Here is a way that you can cut down on some of the repetitions and increase the size of the article: go into more detail about the science heavy sections of the article. Break down what it means so that an average person can understand the neuroscience behind it all. By explaining that better you can increase the size of the article while maintaining its integrity.

4. Refs:2 Some people said there were problems with your references, I don't see it but it is something you may want to look into.

5. Links:2

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:1 Combine some of your sections to make bigger sections. Most of your sections are very short which isn't a bad thing, but they could easily be combined to cut down on the amount of repeated phrases.

8. Writing:1 Again the main issue is the repetitive nature of the article and areas where the science jargon is too much and is easy to get lost in the science behind it all.

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

10. Outstanding?:1

_______________ Total:       14 out of 20

The idea behind your article is a nice one but it seems that it may not be the best choice. I know you had problems with having to change topics midway through and that does suck. With the time you had you have done a great job and hopefully with these reviews you can clean it up a little. There isn't anything that can't be changed at this point. My main advice would be to work on the repetitiveness of the article and explain the hard to understand science components behind it all. Hbarton3 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC) --

Thanks for the comments. I have fixed the typos and grammar issues. I have also edited it so that it is easier to read and a little less technical. Unfortunately, there are not many journal articles written about dendrins, because it is not well know and the function is not clear there are not any review articles. Thank agian! Lindsay Binkow (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)