Talk:Dual representation (psychology)/Georgia Institute of Technology Introduction to Neuroscience

November 2013

1. Quality of Information: 1 - thorough

2. Article size: 2 - good

3. Readability: 2 - flow is very smooth

4. Refs: 2 - nicely formatted

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2 - very well organized

8. Writing: 1 - grammar problem

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

10. Outstanding?: 2 - very outstanding

Total: 18 out of 20

JinOuKim (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

This wikipedia article is very detailed and concise. It has appropriate amount of information and incorporates factual and encyclopedic information.

2. Article size: 2

It has fulfilled the size limit.

3. Readability: 2

It is easy to follow and information is clearly stated.

4. Refs: 1

The reference is only from one author so this article definitely needs more references from different authors. Also, try to find more secondary sources. I think your sources are mostly from the primary sources. (If not, please just correct me)

5. Links: 1

Try to link to other pages throughout the entire wikipedia article. Your link is only at the section of 'brain development '. For example, I think you can definitely link 'toddler memory' to page such as "Memory development".

6. Responsive to comments: 1

You replied to comment above but still have not fixed it in the content.

7. Formatting: 2

The article contains pictures, follows wikipedian style, and is neatly organized. It was very easy to follow and the pictures assisted understanding. The formatting was really good and meets all the requirement.

8. Writing: 2

Except complicated sentence structure, I think the writing style was adequate and readable.

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

Used the real name.

10. Outstanding?: 2

This article is novel and outstanding. It is an interesting topic and definitely catches the attention of researchers.

Total: 17 out of 20

Doyeon Koo (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

Information is complete and concise.

2. Article size: 2

Size limit met.

3. Readability: 2

Good flow to the article.

4. Refs: 1

Use sources from multiple authors

5. Links: 0

Links are insufficient - there are may opportunities to link to other pages.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

Everything has been addressed

7. Formatting: 2

Formatting is clean.

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 2

Total: 17 out of 20

Akumar60 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

_______________

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size:2

3. Readability:2 - Easy to follow as a layman and well written

4. Refs:1 - as noted above, add more varied sources

5. Links:1 - needs more links to other articles

6. Responsive to comments:2 - responded to comments above

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:2

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

10. Outstanding?:2 - good job

Total: 18 out of 20

JacobKhouri (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

_______________