Talk:Cholinergic neuron: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:32, 25 November 2013

Neuroscience C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

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.

Quality of Information (1/2): Images would have helped in maintaining my interest in the entire page. Not sure if this is applicable here or in the formatting section. In any case, I’ll only take a point in this section and not formatting.
Article size (2/2): ~21000 bytes
Readability (2/2): Great job putting scientific jargon into layman’s terms. Very easy to read.
Refs (2/2): Very recent references that are journal articles.
Links (1/2): Had some links but not enough to warrant a 2/2. Not sure if it’s because the information is not located elsewhere on Wikipedia, but a lot of unlinked things seemed like very basic concepts.
Responsive to comments (2/2): Not applicable as there are no comments yet.
Formatting (2/2): Great headings and subheadings.
Writing (2/2): Looks like a lot of work went into this especially getting good sources.
Used real name or has real name on User TALK page (2/2): KelseyGratton
Outstanding? (1.5/2): Well written, but nothing really stood out to me. Not a bad article though!

Total: 17.5 out of 20 Jenna Fair (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2 (a lot recent research articles) 2. Article size: 2 (~20,500) 3. Readability: 2 (extremely easy to follow, follows wikipedia guidelines) 4. Refs: 2 5. Links: 1 *Apply more wikipedia links throughout the paper. There are links in the beginning, but they become scarce throughout. 6. Responsive to comments: 2 (<24 hours so I feel it is okay that a response hasn't been posted for the comment above) 7. Formatting: 2 8. Writing: 1 *easy to read, however, make sure you proof read and remove unnecessary commas and such. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 10. Outstanding?: 1 *I think once more links are placed and it is proofread, it will be outstanding! _______________ Total: 17 out of 20 Allison gainer (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]