User talk:Roanukz/Neuroscience

-

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 0

Need 9,000 More bytes.

3. Readability: 1

Language would be difficult to read by laypeople.

4. Refs: 2

Needs to have 10.

5. Links: 1

Only links once to another Wiki page.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

Does not have course banner tagged

8. Writing: 1

Well written, but largest paragraph was all about one original research (not supposed to have original research).

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

Cannot find real name anywhere.

10. Outstanding?: 0

Needs significant work. _______________ Total:  11     out of 20

- Ewatkins8 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from Nilton Yanez

 * 1) Quality of Information: 1 (explain more in detail; some of us don't know much about the subject)
 * 2) Article size: 0 (under 15 kB)
 * 3) Readability: 1 (some people might not understand what you are saying; work a little on that)
 * 4) Refs: 1 (more citations needed)
 * 5) Links: 1 (not enough links)
 * 6) Responsive to comments: 2
 * 7) Formatting: 1 (no title; maybe organize the bulleted list in a different way, maybe just make it a heading with a higher level, no banner)
 * 8) Writing: 2
 * 9) Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
 * 10) Outstanding?: 1 (good, but needs more information; fix the problems)

Total:     12 out of 20

Nyanez1 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I have updated much of the article content and references, feel free to let me know what you think. Roanukz (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)