Talk:Memory erasure/Georgia Tech Intro to Neuroscience

Peer Reviews
1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 0

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

10. Outstanding?: 1 Total: 16 out of 20 Overall interesting topic, it just need more sources and for some of the ideas to be expanded on. Lindsay Binkow (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I also think it is a very interesting topic, at the time that you were grading my page I had a lot less references. I have since taken care of that and added more. I will be going back in to add more today as well. Mbirdsell3 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————— 1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 0

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

10. Outstanding?: 1 Total: 16 out of 20

This is a really interesting topic and I am glad I read it. I have heard about this before and was interested in what you had to say. Obviously you didn't have enough sources but I am sure you can find more. A lot of things you wrote about were not sourced you should probably do that. I am not sure if you need to talk so much about the different types of memories or at least talk about them more in relation to erasing them. Maybe you could talk about ethics and 1984 type stuff. Connor Beveridge (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion on ethics that was extremely useful! I also recognize that I still need to source a lot of my claims and plan to add some references today. I am glad you enjoyed my topic, since you read it last I have added more information that you might find interesting maybe you should give it another read. Thanks again. Mbirdsell3 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

_____________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarton3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information:1 Very interesting topic, I learned a good bit of info from your page, however it isn't backed up by research. This is a very "science fiction" topic but I am sure there is plenty of research being done on it out there. For a topic like this you really need sources to backup what you are claiming to be true about something that most people only see in movies.

2. Article size:1 less than 15k

3. Readability:2 Flows very nicely and there is no grammar or spelling isues.

4. Refs:0 Again you really need to add the references to back up your claims.

5. Links:2

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:2 Looks very nice and flows very well.

8. Writing:2

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

10. Outstanding?:1

_______________ Total:      15 out of 20 This is a very well written article and with the addition of sources, could easily be in the 18-20 range. I highly recommend you spend a good bit of time adding sources to this article. Hbarton3 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I added more resources since this review but I do plan on adding some more citations today. Thanks again. Mbirdsell3 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)