Talk:Neurolaw/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC) This article is currently pretty far from a GA state, but it is good enough to make a formal review reasonable. I am not going to try to cover all issues at once, but I will bring things up a few points at a time.[reply]

Lead: This should be longer, probably three times as long as currently. The first paragraph raises a set of questions; the lead should also discuss their answers. Also I'm uncomfortable with the wording of the last sentence: neuroscientists, functioning as scientists, can't answer questions about law. If the word "answer" is changed to "address" or "examine" I would be a lot happier.

Let me add as a note that in Wikipedia articles, the lead section is supposed to serve as a summary of the article, hitting on all the most important points, not just as an introduction. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your input. The introductory paragraph has been expanded upon and the information has included some of the major points on the article. More revisions to come. Boothra (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure: I think the first thing to come after the lead should be a section on the history of the field, focusing on who has defined the term "Neurolaw", and how it has been defined. The article states that J. Sherrod Taylor was the first to use the term, in 1997. That isn't correct: a Houston firm called HDI Publishers has been releasing a monthly newsletter called The NeuroLaw Letter since 1991. It described its target audience as "attorneys and professionals who provide services to survivors of brain injury and spinal cord injury and their families." Obviously the meaning of the term has expanded since then: you should spell out how this has happened. A reader who has finished this section ought to have a good sense of what the term Neurolaw means.

Comment: It is correct, but the date (and/or ref) is wrong. J. Sherrod Taylor is the Editor in Chief of The Neurolaw Letter; he is credited with first introducing the field of Neurolaw in 1991. [1] Viriditas (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per reviewer[2] Viriditas (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A History section has been added. Boothra (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology: The article uses a few pseudo-words such as "neuro-attorney" and "neurolitigation". I think these should be replaced with simply "attorney" and "litigation".

I went through and removed all these unusual references. Please let me know if I missed any. Pathyland (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month; is this review still going on? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After pings by multiple users the review hasn't continued, so I'll start up a new subpage. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]