Talk:Neural tissue engineering: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 25 November 2013

Medicine: Neurology C‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
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 is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Neuroscience C‑class Low‑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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To whom this may concern, I'm currently in a course where we pick a topic and write a wikipedia page on the topic. I chose Neural tissue engineering, and I have been compiling research to help me write about the topic. I just wanted to let you know that I will be updating this page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary Lynch (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews

1. Quality of Information: 2/2
Comment – This paper is similar to a research paper in giving a lot of information. It may be beneficial to give an overall synopsis or overview in the first section where as the version submitted dives straight into the information.
2. Article size: 2/2
3. Readability: 1/2
Comment – There are multiple grammatical errors such as “The need for neural tissue engineering arises from the difficulty of the nerve cells and neural tissues regenerate on their own after neural damage.“ Also the article does not flow very well.
4. Refs: 2/2
5. Links: 2/2
6. Responsive to comments: 2/2
7. Formatting: 1/2
Comment – Overall, this article reads more as a research paper than an encyclopedia article. There is inconsistent use of acronyms such as microRNA(miRNA) vs BDNF(brain-derived neurotrophic factor).
8. Writing: 1/2
Comment – Opinions are inserted in the intro where it says “are exciting potential techniques” and “may someday allow scientists.” If these are from review papers, the statements and potential for the future should be cited.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2
10. Outstanding?: 1/2
Comment – There are multiple grammatical and the article resembles a research paper. It may be beneficial to have others proofread your article before the final submission.
_______________
Total: 16 out of 20

- All comments are based on version submitted for grading

AlexLee90 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks Alex! I'll make an introduction section when I get the chance and proofread again to make the wording more like an encyclopedia article.[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ** All comments are based on version submitted for grading <br>
 [[User:AlexLee90|AlexLee90]] ([[User talk:AlexLee90|talk]]) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
+Thanks Alex! I'll make an introduction section when I get the chance and proofread again to make the wording more like an encyclopedia article.