Talk:Cortical remapping

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

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Medicine: Neurology 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
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).

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.

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)[reply]

Rajeevan Poorna

Quality of Information: 2
Article size: 2
15,652 bytes
Readability: 1
The article was readable and easy to follow. However, the user could afford to put in more pictures.
Refs: 2
Decent number of articles and credible sources.
Links: 2
There were many links that made it easy for a person to reference things they didn't know about.
Responsive to comments: 2
There were no recent comments.
Formatting: 1
The user could have more separation with sections and subsections since the article was very detailed.
Writing: 2
The writing was excellent, easy to follow, and detailed.
Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
Username is a real name.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]