Talk:Lumbar anterior root stimulator

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

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 1

1. Quality of Information: 2 - Solid information, well referenced.

2. Article size: 0 - Only ~7000 bytes. Need between 15,000 and 25,000 bytes.

3. Readability: 2 - Worded in terms such that a layperson would understand.

4. Refs: 2 - Meets minimum requirement set by Dr. Potter

5. Links: 1 - Only few terms are linked due to only half the article being present.

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - No comments are present.

7. Formatting: 2 - Arranged in sensible order.

8. Writing: 1 - Well written but needs more depth.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 - The real name was specified for the user account.

10. Outstanding?: 1 - A topic that has the chance to be well written and well referenced.

Total: 15/20

Skarthikeyan3 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 1 - Not enough.

2. Article size: 0 - Not enough. Only contains 7,000 bytes.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1 - Only 2 or 3 links shown.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 0 - Page does not exist.

10. Outstanding?: 1 - Not formatted well enough, but still acceptable.

_______________

Total: 13 out of 20

JoowonJun (talk) 2:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

1. Quality of Information: 1 Referenced information, could be more thorough.

2. Article size: 0 Did not meet size requirement only 7,141 bytes

3. Readability: 2 The article was worded well

4. Refs: 2 Meets minimum of 10 references assigned by Dr. Potter

5. Links: 1 Few links, could use more

6. Responsive to comments: 1 No initial talk page

7. Formatting: 2 Formatting made sense and was easy to follow

8. Writing: 1 Article was well written but needs more content

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

10. Outstanding?: 0 Nothing really outstanding about this article

_______________

Total: 12 out of 20

AnishJ (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the Peer Reviews. Good Luck on finals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkasinadhuni3 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]