Talk:Cortical remapping

Peer Review

Kunal Kambo Puri

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1 The pictures need citations. At least you referenced the first one, but it needs a full citation.

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2 none except peer-review

7. Formatting: 2 I'm actually not sure if the project banner belongs in "External Links," but at least it's there.

8. Writing: 1 frequent comma errors

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2 The article is well-referenced except for the pictures, which were appealing. Other peers have complained about your organization, but I think it's a deliberate, useful choice rather than a mistake. Knowledge depends on research, so it makes sense to organize it that way if necessary, and you've done a poignant and helpful job of reviewing the literature and identifying important points.

Total: 18/20

Also, I cannot believe there's another doctor named Ron Paul. That's funny.

I moved the project banner to my user page. I decided to keep the sections the way they were because I couldn't figure out a way to break them down to make an improvement to the article. Since I got all my images from wiki commons I don't think a specific citation for each is necessary. Thank you for the feedback!

SarahReed54 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajeevan Poorna

1. Quality of Information: 2
   
2. Article size: 2
   15,652 bytes
3. Readability: 1
   The article was readable and easy to follow. However, the user could afford to put in more pictures.
4. Refs: 2
   Decent number of articles and credible sources.
5. Links: 2
   There were many links that made it easy for a person to reference things they didn't know about.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
   There were no recent comments.
7. Formatting: 1
   The user could have more separation with sections and subsections since the article was very detailed.
8. Writing: 2
   The writing was excellent, easy to follow, and detailed.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
   Username is a real name.
10. Outstanding?: 1
    Very good article, but make sure to put more pictures and detailed subsections/sections to make it outstanding

Total: 17 out of 20 --poornarajeevan (talk)19:30, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)

I tried to find relevant images to improve the article and was only able to find a few. I agree that it needed more images too so I hope the ones I have found helped improve the article. I decided to keep the sections the way they were however because I couldn't find a good way to break the sections down to really improve the article. Thank you for the feedback!

SarahReed54 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bahar Rahsepar

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 (no comments posted)
7. Formatting: 1

• About the banner to be a contributor to Wikipedia neuroscience project, I guess this banner should go to your user page rather than the article page.Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience
• Also categorizing various sections and sub-sections would help the article.

8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1

• You did a nice job in terms of your article and had a really interesting topic, but working more on the organization and flow of the sections could further benefit the article and helps it to be outstanding.
• Another suggestion, which would not really goes to any of the above categories, is to add the brain that changes itself as a further reading suggestion for the readers.

_________________________________
Total: 18 out of 20
Bahar.rahsepar (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the banner to my user page and created a further reading section to add The Brain that Changes Itself to it. I did some work on a rephrasing confusing sentences to help increase flow. I decided to keep the sections the way they were however because I couldn't find a way to break then down so it would truly improve the article. Thank you for the feedback!

SarahReed54 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)