Talk:Mirror-touch synesthesia: Difference between revisions
Assessment: -WikiProject Medicine; Psychology: class=Start; +Cognitive science: class=Start (assisted) |
Tag: |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=}} |
||
{{WikiProject Cognitive science }} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013) | term = 2013 Q3 }} |
{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013) | term = 2013 Q3 }} |
||
Latest revision as of 02:23, 30 January 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Peer Review 1
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 2 Solid information, well referenced.
2. Article size: 2 - Meets requirement set by Dr. Potter.
3. Readability: 2 - Worded in terms such that a layperson would understand.
4. Refs: 1 - Does not meet minimum requirement set by Dr. Potter
5. Links: 1 - Links to other Wikipedia articles is minimal.
6. Responsive to comments: 2 - No comments are present.
7. Formatting: 2 - Arranged in sensible order.
8. Writing: 2 - Well written.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 - Real name was used as user account.
10. Outstanding?: 2 - Nice topic to pick, I was surprised it did not already have a page.
Total: 18/20
P.S. Missing content on current research.
Skarthikeyan3 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 2
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1 - Does not have at least 10 references. Only has 8.
5. Links: 2
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: 19/20
JoowonJun (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 3
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 2 - Very informative article
2. Article Size: 2 - Meets criterion
3. Readability: 2 - Very easy to read
4. References: 1 - Needs more references. May need to try finding different authors.
5. Links: 2 - Has many good side links
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 1 - Introduction paragraph seems very long. Consider putting parts of it into more specific subcategories. Citing seems a bit clunky (e.g. citing the Blakemore paper almost every line), try pushing to end of each section.
8. Writing: 2 - No errors
9. Real Name: 2
10. Outstanding: 1 - Very informative, just needs slight reorganization (top heavy article).
Total: 17/20
Rkasinadhuni3 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Responding to peer review comments
[edit]Added more links throughout the article and reformatted the page so that there is a small intro at the top of the page and the rest of the summary is right below the table of contents. The citations were also fixed. They are no longer clunky and they were put outside of periods. With regard to choosing more references, or references from different authors, Dr. Michael Banissy is a leading researcher for mirror touch synesthesia, and thus many of the publications were his. It's a fairly recent topic (first case reported in 2007), so there is not much more out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahwish Khan (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)