User talk:Amarmed/sandbox

I liked this article. It is very easy to understand and flows very well. However I would like to point out a few things I think could be changed

1)There are a lot of dead hyperlinks(in red) and they do not lead to any Wikipedia page.

2)You seem to use fMRI and fMRIa interchangeably in some sections.

3)A diagram or two would help the reader in visualizing what fMRIa is about.

Also, in the advantages section, I think it would be better if you wrote, there a dew advantages rather than many since you only stated 3 advantages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.176.143 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, I liked how easy it is to understand and I sure did learn about fMRI adaptation as I never knew such a thing existed.

Hello, interesting article indeed, the topic was very interesting. As expected I just have some comments and suggestions for you.

“blood oxygen level dependant responses” should not be in red, it should be either linked to the fMRI wiki page or to nothing at all. I am also not sure why “magnetic field to align the neurons” is red linked. Neither of these has a wiki page and I am not sure that they even ever should, especially not the second one.

I do not think that it is necessary to cite every single sentence, especially when consecutive sentences are being cited from the same source. In this case I think it makes sense to give the one citation at the end of the string of sentences from the same source. The constant citations interrupt the flow of the article.

“Tootell et al.” also leads to no article, if you wish to link it to an article about either the person named Tootel or to an article about a study by Tootell et al. then the code should be the name of the real wiki page followed by | and then the words to wish to represent the page in your article. This problem crops up numerous times in the article and I recommend that you rectify the problem. It is my opinion that only terms that have articles or should have articles are ones that can be linked. Another example is the term “auditory cortex of anesthetized cats”. This is something that is far too specific to ever have a wiki page, especially considering the fact that the auditory cortex of anesthetized cats is physically identical to the cortex of any other cat. I think it is possible that you are using the double square brackets as a tool to highlight important terms, if this was your intention I suggest you bold or italicize these terms instead.

You also have an invalid citation which should be a simple fix. Jfcreaghan (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)