Talk:Fronto-cerebellar dissociation

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.

Evaluation

1. Quality of Information: 1

I think that you could go into a little more detail with the information you are writing about in this article. Maybe you could add more sections or just go a little more in-depth in explaining fronto-cerebellar dissociation and maybe perhaps surgeries or procedures involving fronto-cerebellar dissociations.

I have found virtually nothing on surgeries or procedures for frontocerebellar dissociation. I think I was unclear in explaining that it is not a clinical disease or condition. It is inhibited communication between the two regions, most notably seen in subjects afflicted by ADHD, alcoholism, and heroin addiction. --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Article size: 1

This article is not the appropriate size (at least 15,000 bytes).

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1

I think you could add more links; a particular example I noticed was "positron emission tomography" in the "Background" section. Other words could be linked as well to give people direct access to more information.

Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Responsive to comments: 2 (?)

7. Formatting: 1

There is no course banner on the talk page for this article. Also, there are no images, which might help enhance your article.

Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Writing: 1

I think that there may be some grammatical errors in the article, for example the first sentence is a bit long and confusing. Also it says "...includes dissociation of the frontal and cerebellar regions..." but it does not specify of what - the frontal and cerebellar regions of the brain.

Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

I think that just adding more details and examples and facts to your article would make it more outstanding and more informative. Good start so far though!

_______________ Total: 14 out of 20

Andrea Trementozzi (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 1

There is background and a pathway section but no section outlining and explaining what it is. There are related conditions which make up a large percentage of your article but there is not enough information on the actual topic.

I think I was unclear in explaining that it is not a clinical disease or condition. It is inhibited communication between the two regions, most notably seen in subjects afflicted by ADHD, alcoholism, and heroin addiction. --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Article size: 0

Too short

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2 Have enough of the right type of references. There are enough up to date new sources.

5. Links: 1

Missing many links to explain basic things like PET, brain regions and anatomy, and other jargon.

Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Responsive to comments: 0

Your article is too short and you have not fixed it yet in response to the other comments. You have also not engaged on the comments on your talk page yet.

7. Formatting: 1

No course banner
No images

Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Writing: 1

I agree with the poor wording of the first sentence from the previous review.

Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

No images or original media. Article is too short and does not fully explain what the topic is.

_______________ Total: 11 out of 20

Keval tilva (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 1 You have a good foundation. Maybe add some more details about pathways (images, flowcharts perhaps? Good opportunity for original content!)
Great idea, thank you! --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Article size: 1 Too short, not quite 15000 KB.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1 I would add some more links to other technical articles. It would be helpful for those not versed in your topic.
Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Responsive to comments: 1 Need to address some comments on talk page.
Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

7. Formatting: 1 Need course banner
Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Writing: 1 Some grammatical errors addressed by other users need to be addressed.
Addressed --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

10. Outstanding?: 1 Not sure what "outstanding" means here. _______________ Total: 13 out of 20

Tam Van (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Especially pointing out the opportunity for original content showing brain regions/pathways. --BrandonVerwijst (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]