Talk:University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test

Peer Review 1
1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

It is only 11,000

3. Readability: 1

It is very underlinked. You should link more words in the article such as genetics, olfactory system, and smell identification tests.

4. Refs: 1

Half of your references are by the same person

5. Links: 1

Lacking in red links

6. Responsive to comments: 2

No comments yet

7. Formatting: 1

It would be nice if you could add in a subsection or two. Maybe in diagnosis you could separate it into Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Disease. Also I think the Olfactory system section should be above diagnosis and demographics.

8. Writing: 1

Random grammar errors including this: “ individuals begin to loose function of their olfactory system” Also, your caption for your picture is a little weird… it says “totally 40”

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

It was pretty good but not spectacular. I don't really feel like I learned a lot. _______________

Total: 13  out of 20

Kfagan6 (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I do have a lot of editing left. Ruthfogg (talk 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

 * 1) Quality of Information (2/2): Good quality writing and information included.
 * 2) Article size (1/2): Not 15,000 bytes
 * 3) Readability (2/2): Great writing flow.  Easy to follow and kept my interest!
 * 4) Refs (1.5/2): A lot of the references are older, not sure if it’s just because of older research (1990s and before).  If it is, let me know, and I would give the half-point back
 * 5) Links (1/2): Not very many links to other Wiki pages throughout
 * 6) Responsive to comments (1/2): Has not responded to Kiley’s post and it has been three days
 * 7) Formatting (1/2): No course banner on talk page
 * 8) Writing (1/2): Some spelling errors throughout
 * 9) Used real name or has real name on User TALK page (2/2): Username is Ruthfogg
 * 10) Outstanding? (1/2): Good quality writing, just not enough information.  Also, some images would have made the page more appealing.

Total: 13.5 out of 20

Jenna Fair (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I do need to add more information. Ruthfogg (talk 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
1. Quality of Information: 2
 * Relevant, credible information presented

2. Article size: 1
 * A little short, try to elaborate on other characteristics of the test. Maybe you can discuss the scientific reception of the test other than your brief mention of cultural bias. Are there critics?  What other tests are available?  Are there any limitations to using this test?

3. Readability: 1
 * The presented content is very underlinked. Be sure to link to other Wikipedia pages when mentioning complex topic such as 'the olfactory system', 'suprathreshold', 'microencapsulated', 'fMRI' and others.

4. Refs: 1
 * There is a sufficient quantity of references, but the majority of them are authored by Richard Doty. To ensure the presentation of unbiased information, you should probably add more references supporting Doty's claims (or refuting them if need be).

5. Links: 1
 * As mentioned above, this article needs many more links.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1
 * The format is effective, but I would consider either removing the Olfactory System section or moving it towards the beginning of the article. The information in this section is largely redundant with the separate olfactory system article.  Maybe introducing the specific parts of the olfactory system targeted by the test and why these structures are important would be helpful as background information.

8. Writing: 1
 * Various spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. Try to make the article read a bit more like an encyclopedia.

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

10. Outstanding?: 1
 * The information presented is good, but not outstanding. The inclusion of images of the test being conducted or of some of olfactory structures of interest could add interest and clarity to the article.

_______________

Total: 13  out of 20

Christian Erdman (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to work on these errors. Ruthfogg (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)