Talk:Megalencephaly

Future Edits

Planning to redo references to meet wikipedia guidelines/requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcjohnson303 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1 Please fix typos and some grammatical mistakes
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Please try to use some pictures if possible, and it might also be a good idea to have the history section in the beginning instead of having it in the end.
_______________ Total: 18 out of 20
Overall, I feel like I learned something about this topic!

MeeraEJohn (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed typos and grammatical mistakes
• Moved History section
• Very difficult to find an appropriate image from wikicommons that is informative for this article. Hope that this article is outstanding with the high use of references (20 total).

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Peer Review

_______________
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
Consider moving history section to beginning of content
4. Refs: 1
Consider avoiding yahoo medicine and cerebral palsy network (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))
5. Links: 2
Consider linking neuronal proliferation to Neural_development
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting:2
8. Writing: 1
Sentences do not flow very well
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?:1
Does read like wikipedia article
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Sheng Jiang (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Updated two references (yahoo and cerebral palsy) with more acceptable sources per wiki guidelines
• History section moved
• Changed neuronal proliferation and added neurogenesis as link. This is a more appropriate page.
• Fixed grammatical errors and sentence flow.

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 0 - I don’t see any talk responses yet.
7. Formatting: 2 - Follows a logical progression. Easy for a reader who knows nothing about your topic to follow.
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 - reads like a Wikipedia Page
_______________ Total: 18 out of 20
HeatherAlysiaThompsonJenkins (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• No talk responses because I have not had any comments on my TALK page besides peer reviews!!

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)