Talk:Dendrodendritic synapse: Difference between revisions
Lokazaki0326 (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Secondary Review 2=== |
===Secondary Review 2=== |
||
The article was well written and expanded especially when there was no pre-existing page present to go off of. I liked how there the different places that this synapse could be found were included and expanded upon to get better understanding of the synapse. The history section was also helpful to show how this synapse was important and also giving a time frame as to when this was going on. I also think that there could be an image, if there is one, to distinguish the difference between the axodendritic synapse that it was compared to in the beginning. [[User:Lokazaki0326|Lokazaki0326]] ([[User talk:Lokazaki0326|talk]]) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
The article was well written and expanded especially when there was no pre-existing page present to go off of. I liked how there the different places that this synapse could be found were included and expanded upon to get better understanding of the synapse. The history section was also helpful to show how this synapse was important and also giving a time frame as to when this was going on. I also think that there could be an image, if there is one, to distinguish the difference between the axodendritic synapse that it was compared to in the beginning. [[User:Lokazaki0326|Lokazaki0326]] ([[User talk:Lokazaki0326|talk]]) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
===Secondary Review 3=== |
|||
I think you should add some more wikilinks because they will help readers understand what you are saying. I know you said there were not many secondary sources, however, most of your sources are quite old. This could be a problem because our understanding of things can change very quickly as additional research is done. I think you should try to find some newer sources to cite to ensure readers that everything you are saying is up-to-date and correct. Finally, your reference list should be edited to list each source only once. This means the citations throughout you article will have to be modified. [[User:AGBiology|AGBiology]] ([[User talk:AGBiology|talk]]) 03:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:39, 13 April 2015
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Marquette University/Neurobiology (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Notes for class editors: When we started this project, there was no existing page for this topic. There were not many secondary sources on this topic, especially ones that focused exclusively on dendrodendritic synapses. We tried to create a solid foundational page giving a good overview of the topic. Veterinarydreams (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Secondary Reviews
Good overview of the topic! I saw you didn't have that many sources. It did seem a little vague at times but that might just be because of sources. I think a picture of it would be nice and if not the actual synapse maybe just a neuron. It would help people understand the anatomy of it more. - Mmich25
Secondary Review 2
The article was well written and expanded especially when there was no pre-existing page present to go off of. I liked how there the different places that this synapse could be found were included and expanded upon to get better understanding of the synapse. The history section was also helpful to show how this synapse was important and also giving a time frame as to when this was going on. I also think that there could be an image, if there is one, to distinguish the difference between the axodendritic synapse that it was compared to in the beginning. Lokazaki0326 (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Secondary Review 3
I think you should add some more wikilinks because they will help readers understand what you are saying. I know you said there were not many secondary sources, however, most of your sources are quite old. This could be a problem because our understanding of things can change very quickly as additional research is done. I think you should try to find some newer sources to cite to ensure readers that everything you are saying is up-to-date and correct. Finally, your reference list should be edited to list each source only once. This means the citations throughout you article will have to be modified. AGBiology (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)