Wikipedia:Peer review/Autotopagnosia/archive1

Autotopagnosia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am a student in Introduction to Neuroscience at Boston College and am completing an assignment to attempt to increase the amount and quality of Neuroscience information on Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment on any section and aspect of the article; however, I would especially appreciate comments on any parts of the article that are confusing or unclear. Suggestions for more specific changes are also welcome.

Thanks, KellyCardinal (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RJH Comments:

I would move the Symptoms section before the Causes section, so the reader becomes familiar with the condition before learning how the symptoms occur.
The text has a lot of very short paragraphs consisting of one or two sentences, as well as some quite long paragraphs. You may want to modify this; please see the guidelines at WP:Paragraph.
"Many believe that the term...", "Some scientists postulate...", "Others suggest ...", "Many believe...", "some believe..." appear to be WP:WEASEL and may need to be reworded.
"...cure autotopagnosia to date."; "Currently, the active..."; "Currently, studies are...": These are dated statements, so it is good practice to give a specific year (for future reference). See {{As of}} for example.
You might consider using {{harvtxt}} for your inline references such as Carlos Semenza (1998). See Template:Harvard citation documentation for examples.
In your references section, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a reference (per "Parietal Lobe"). Also, I believe it is common practice to link the reference title using the external link, rather than putting the external url at the end. (But it's up to you really.) Finally, all of the "et al" entries should be italicized throughout the article.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Good luck with the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article, RHJ! We appreciate all of your feedback and have taken most of your suggestions when making our final edits to the page. We decided to keep the symptoms section after causes because it is followed by diagnosis, and we thought moving it would disrupt the flow of the article. We also could not access Harvard documents and were unsure of what you meant regarding harvtxt. Other than that, we made revisions to the article as you suggested. Your review was extremely helpful, thanks again! KellyCardinal (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]