User talk:Nyanez1/Nerve Staining
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 1
Needs 7 more KB (are at 8 KB)
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 0
You only have 2 references out of the required 10.
5. Links: 2
You have two links to pages that don't exist. Make sure you take those out.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
I don't see real name anywhere on talk page.
10. Outstanding?: 1
Has the potential to be a great and useful tool, but needs a good amount of work.
_______________ Total: 14 out of 20
Ewatkins8 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review from Wen Xu
[edit]- Quality of Information: 1 (Some parts not finished)
- Article size: 1 (Less than expected)
- Readability: 2
- Refs: 1 (Not enough citations)
- Links: 2
- Responsive to comments: 2
- Formatting: 2
- Writing: 2
- Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
- Outstanding: 1 (Not finished but the Sihler's Method part is well organized)
_______________
Total: 16 out of 20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxu68 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
Empty sections, incomplete
2. Article size: 1
Too short
3. Readability: 1
Difficult to read, too many subsections
4. Refs: 1
Only 2 refs
5. Links: 1
missing lins, red links
6. Responsive to comments: 1
No response yet
7. Formatting: 1
The formatting could use an overhaul. It's very busy and not conducive to conveying important information. Repeating the strengths an weaknesses sub topics is kind of an eye sore. Remove those entirely and work the content into the existing sub topics.
8. Writing: 1
Very informal at points. Some even look like notes you might have made for yourself for future content?
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
Full name?
10. Outstanding?: 0
Not outstanding, needs work
_______________
Total: 9 out of 20