Talk:Dynamic functional connectivity

- 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size: 2 3. Readability: 1 4. Refs: 2 5. Links: 2
 * Current knowledge of the topic is used and explained in an unbiased manner where the pros and cons are available to the reader
 * Met the 15,000 bytes requirement
 * May be helpful to contribute more of the "Overview and History" to the portion above the table of contents and add more background links in order to allow the reader to pursue a surface-level knowledge in Functional Connectivity and Brain Imaging before pursuing the rest of the article. In other portions, however, a variety of links are provided to aid the reader's understanding.
 * 13 Citations are listed and most with recent dates, showing a current knowledge of the topic is used in the article

6. Responsive to comments:2 7. Formatting: 2
 * No comments on the talk page, and therefore no action has been needed

8. Writing: 1 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
 * Minor typos and exposed citations (in the "Significant Findings" portion), but overall readable and structured well

10. Outstanding?: 1
 * May want to consider adding some additional type of media to illustrate the methods used.

Total: 17 out of 20 Mmcmullen3 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I added two pictures with captions to make it a little more readable. Mac Merritt (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) -

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1, Good amount of links, however a few more can be added. (eg. schizophrenia, alzheirmer's)

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1  Could use a better introduction to the article.

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________ Total:     18  out of 20

Laura McKenzie (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I added several internal links in response to your comment, and I cleared up the introduction some. Mac Merritt (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2- 17,000 +

3. Readability: 2 4. Refs:2 13+

5. Links:2

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1 In some cases, the article is very difficult to follow. The writer seems to know what they are talking about. However, they do not do a great job explaining it to people who have not researched the topic. _______________ Total:    19  out of 20

P J McGill (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I changed my writing to get rid of some of the sloppy editing that may have made it more difficult to read. Do you have any specific suggestions for places where I could make it more readable. Mac Merritt (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)