Talk:Lexical–gustatory synesthesia

Peer Review from fellow classmate 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size: 1, did not meet the minimum requirement. 3. Readability: 2 4. Refs: 1, just short of the minimum requirement. 5. Links: 1, very few links to other wikipedia pages and no links to external resources. 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting: 2, pictures would be a great addition to the article. 8. Writing: 2, although check for some grammatical errors and typos. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 10. Outstanding?: 1, the article is easy and very interesting to read, but needs more content, explanations, and links to other wiki pages and/or external links. _______________ Total: 16 out of 20 AshleyHardy (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am working on adding to the case studies and more content to each section that I have. I am also adding more links to other Wikipedia pages. HeatherAlysiaThompsonJenkins (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from fellow classmate 1. Quality of Information: 2 Enough references in the past 3 years. 2. Article size: 0  ~7kB under minimum 3. Readability: 1 Organization could be improved, consider adding a history section or something similar. 4. Refs: 1 Only 9 references 5. Links: 0 Only 1 internal Wikipedia link 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting: 1 Formatting of article doesn't follow the flow of most other Wikipedia articles. 8. Writing: 1 Diction and syntax doesn't really feel like that of a Wikipedia article, otherwise it is fine. For example, the sentence talking about the “gold standard” feels very sudden and out of place, and could be written better. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 10. Outstanding?: 0 While it is an interesting topic, the article itself needs work. _______________ Total: 10 out of 20 Williamjhendry (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm adding more links to other Wikipedia pages soon. I will also edit my paragraphs to better conform to the Wiki writing style. I will also look into typing out a history section to the article if I can find enough background on the topic. I appreciate your comments to help me make the article better. HeatherAlysiaThompsonJenkins (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from fellow classmate 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size: 1 You are just over half way to the minimum. Consider adding links or pictures if you don't have enough information to add more detail. 3. Readability: 1 needs final proof reading 4. Refs: 1 You need one more reference. 5. Links: 1 consider adding more links 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?: 1 The article needs a little more detail and more links would be helpful. _______________ Total: 15 out of 20 Kathleen Heller (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)