Talk:Nocturia: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
[[User:Rachel Candace Law|Rachel Candace Law]] ([[User talk:Rachel Candace Law|talk]]) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
[[User:Rachel Candace Law|Rachel Candace Law]] ([[User talk:Rachel Candace Law|talk]]) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
1. Quality of Information: 2 |
|||
Very descriptive, detailed, yet concise. Generally good article. |
|||
2. Article size: 2 |
|||
Met the size requirement. |
|||
3. Readability: 2 |
|||
Article is generally easy to read and understand, with good descriptions of information. |
|||
4. Refs: 1 |
|||
Try to update with more recent sources. |
|||
5. Links: 1 |
|||
Try to add 3-4 more links, it is possible. |
|||
6. Responsive to comments: 2 |
|||
No comments, so no issue. |
|||
7. Formatting: 2 |
|||
Maybe try to include pictures, but I understand if it is difficult to do so with this topic. Rest of the formatting looking okay. |
|||
8. Writing: 2 |
|||
Easy to read and understand, good flow to the article. |
|||
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1 |
|||
Username is used, and not real name. |
|||
10. Outstanding?: 2 |
|||
Outstanding and novel article. |
|||
_______________ |
|||
Total: 17 out of 20 |
|||
[[User:Akumar60|Akumar60]] ([[User talk:Akumar60|talk]]) 22:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:40, 25 November 2013
 | 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. |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nocturia.
|
 | Medicine Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Peer Reviews
1. Quality of Information: 2
The information presented is factual.
2. Article size: 0
The article itself meets the assignment requirements, but the author's contribution does not. This was also completed after the deadline.
3. Readability: 2
This is very easy to read.
4. Refs: 2
The author used more than the required number of references.
5. Links: 2
There are a lot of links to other wikipedia pages throughout the article.
6. Responsive to comments:2
There are no comments yet.
7. Formatting: 2
This was formatted very well and divided into subtopics that made sense.
8. Writing: 2
This was well written.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
The username is close to the author's real name, but it's not the author's real name and I didn't see it on the user Talk page.
10. Outstanding?: 2
This article was interesting to read.
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Catherine Kwon (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
- The most recent source is from 2007.
2. Article size: 2
- Didn't contribute the entire 15KB+, but the final size is enough, so I think that's okay.
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
- Good subtopics
8. Writing: 1
- I don't thin all the acronyms are necessary; when they're onyl mentioned once there is no point and when they are mentioned again the reader still has to look back up to see what it stands for. Maybe only use a couple important ones.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
- Couldn't find the entire real name anywhere, buy username is close.
10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Rachel Candace Law (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
Very descriptive, detailed, yet concise. Generally good article.
2. Article size: 2
Met the size requirement.
3. Readability: 2
Article is generally easy to read and understand, with good descriptions of information.
4. Refs: 1
Try to update with more recent sources.
5. Links: 1
Try to add 3-4 more links, it is possible.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
No comments, so no issue.
7. Formatting: 2
Maybe try to include pictures, but I understand if it is difficult to do so with this topic. Rest of the formatting looking okay.
8. Writing: 2
Easy to read and understand, good flow to the article.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
Username is used, and not real name.
10. Outstanding?: 2
Outstanding and novel article. _______________
Total: 17 out of 20