Talk:Spinal interneuron

Untitled
This is my first Wikipedia article, and I chose this "spinal interneuron" topic as an assignment for my neuroscience course. I appreciate your input and suggestions in making my article more informative and accurate. Please let me know if there is anything I could do to perfect this article. I have tried to follow Wikipedia's formatting guidelines for this neuroscience related article. As for the citations, there are only 14. When I wrote my original article, there were many more citations (peer reviewed journal articles) provided. However, the Wikipedia guidelines required me to add only the ones that were published in the past 10 years and were "Reviews". Although this is a course assignment, I will continue working on this article as an ongoing project. Thanks NiayeshRahimiCortese (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Hi - please read over WP:MEDRS. This article has sourcing problems. I'm sorry if your instructor didn't go over our medical sourcing standards, but Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of primary sources etc in articles about medicine, and greatly prefers the use of review articles published in the last decade unless no such sources are available. For now, I've added some maintenance tags, and would encourage you to work in your sandbox until the WP:MEDRS problems are ironed out. I hate to do this since I see you've put a tremendous amount of work in to it, but we have strict sourcing standards for medical articles that your version didn't meet. Since a lot of other students (almost all) in your class have similar problems with their articles, I'll also be dropping your professor a general note. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
1. Quality of Information: 1


 * Good Information so far, but needs more.

2. Article size: 1


 * 7KB/15KB, needs more

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1


 * only 7 references; only 1 within the last 10 years.

5. Links: 1


 * only a couple outgoing links, needs more.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1


 * Several typos and grammatical errors.

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

10. Outstanding?: 0


 * Article is not finished

_______________

Total: 13/20

Mcorrin3 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

- 1. Quality of Information: 0


 * Incomplete

2. Article size:0


 * not enough kb

3. Readability:1


 * More structure needed

4. Refs:0


 * problem with references and not enough references

5. Links:1


 * More links needed

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:1


 * More structures are needed

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

10. Outstanding?:0


 * Needs to improve more.

_______________

Total:    9  out of 20 JaeHyung Choi (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC) - -

1. Quality of Information: 1

-Quality of information is not bad, but can't really say until finished.

2. Article size: 1 . -Article not nearly long enough; there are empty sections. Article content is only halfway there.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1

-Reference list not long enough

5. Links: 1

-Very few links

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1

-Obvious spelling and grammar mistakes

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

-Real name not present on user talk page- easily fixed.

10. Outstanding?: 0

-Still needs a lot of work.

_______________

Total: 13 out of 20

Ryan Chu (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)