Talk:Neuroeffector junction/Georgia Institute of Technology Introduction to Neuroscience

1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size:2 3. Readability:2 4. Refs:2 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?:2

Total: 20/20 Roanukz (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from Kelli Allen
_______________
 * 1) Quality of Information: 2
 * 2) Article size: 2
 * 3) Readability: 2 --- To make the article easier to read, I might make the top portion that was previously the introduction a bit shorter. With the extra information in the introduction, it might be better to move to another heading or create a new heading. Just a thought, but if you find all of that information necessary to the introduction, then it would be appropriate to leave it as such.
 * 4) Refs: 0---There are not ten sources in the reference section.
 * 5) Links: 2
 * 6) Responsive to comments: 2
 * 7) Formatting: 1---Autonomic nervous system and enteric nervous system links should be lowercase.
 * 8) Writing: 2---Writing is concise and easy to read.
 * 9) Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
 * 10) Outstanding: 1

Total: 17  out of 20 Kallen35 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from Nilton Yanez
Total:     18 out of 20 Nyanez1 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Quality of Information: 2
 * 2) Article size: 2
 * 3) Readability: 2
 * 4) Refs: 1 (not ten sources)
 * 5) Links: 1 (not enough 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?: 2 (good article; in my opinion just work some more on the references and links and you should probably be fine)