Talk:Neural tissue engineering

To whom this may concern, I'm currently in a course where we pick a topic and write a wikipedia page on the topic. I chose Neural tissue engineering, and I have been compiling research to help me write about the topic. I just wanted to let you know that I will be updating this page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary Lynch (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
1. Quality of Information: 2/2 Comment – This paper is similar to a research paper in giving a lot of information. It may be beneficial to give an overall synopsis or overview in the first section where as the version submitted dives straight into the information. 2. Article size: 2/2 3. Readability: 1/2 Comment – There are multiple grammatical errors such as “The need for neural tissue engineering arises from the difficulty of the nerve cells and neural tissues regenerate on their own after neural damage.“ Also the article does not flow very well. 4. Refs: 2/2 5. Links: 2/2 6. Responsive to comments: 2/2 7. Formatting: 1/2 Comment – Overall, this article reads more as a research paper than an encyclopedia article. There is inconsistent use of acronyms such as microRNA(miRNA) vs BDNF(brain-derived neurotrophic factor). 8. Writing: 1/2 Comment – Opinions are inserted in the intro where it says “are exciting potential techniques” and “may someday allow scientists.” If these are from review papers, the statements and potential for the future should be cited. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2 10. Outstanding?: 1/2 Comment – There are multiple grammatical and the article resembles a research paper. It may be beneficial to have others proofread your article before the final submission. _______________ Total:  16 out of 20 AlexLee90 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All comments are based on version submitted for grading
 * Thanks Alex! I'll make an introduction section when I get the chance and proofread again to make the wording more like an encyclopedia article. Hilary Lynch (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1

- Half of the references don't have years.

5. Links: 1

- Could use some more links in sections that don't have any. 6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1

- Some sentences aren't grammatically correct. Read back over the article to try and catch the errors.

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

- Very interesting topic, but I think could of been explored a bit better. Try and catch more attention using the first paragraph.

_______________

Total: 16 out of 20

Try to define the topic within the first sentence. Be careful with capitalization (Chronic electrode implants - third paragraph). Be consistent with references; some have spaces between words and [1], some don't. Good use of images.

Rachel Candace Law (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size: 2 3. Readability: 1 4. Refs: 1 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
 * Tone is not consistent throughout the page
 * Some references are not complete
 * Bullet points are easier to read and more cohesive when aligned
 * Grammar errors

_______________ Total:  16 out of 20 Thuy Le (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary Lynch (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)