User talk:Laura McKenzie/Neuro sandbox

Assessments
From main article, but more appropriate here

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2 –had no comments yet

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1 – very thorough on citation and background information on the anatomy and physiology, could be outstanding if you went more into how problems in the physiology results in dysosmia _______________ Total:     19  out of 20

Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size:2 over 15,000

3. Readability:2

4. Refs:2 over 10 refs.

5. Links:2 links are used when needed

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting:2 great flow, information is well developed

8. Writing:2

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

10. Outstanding?:2 great job, very informative. Subject is well described and all background information is given. _______________ Total:20       out of 20

P J McGill (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1 Comments: I would try to add just a few more spread out throughout the article to cover all sections.

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: 19      out of 20 AllisonMaloney (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)