Talk:Neurolaw/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

"Neurolaw is an emerging field of interdisciplinary" I'd take out emerging, not really encyclopedic.
"The most prominent questions that have emerged from this exploration are as follows: To what extent can a tumor or brain injury alleviate criminal punishment? Can sentencing or rehabilitation regulations be influenced by neuroscience? Who is permitted access to images of a person’s brain?" I'd reword so as not to put it in question form. Feels more like a paper than an article as is.
The citation needed tags need to be addressed.
"The term neurolaw was first used in practice by the neuroscientist and attorney J. Sherrod Taylor in 1991" it's a bit repetitive, as the previous paragraph says the exact same thing; modify a bit, or combine with the next sentence.
"For example" is used a lot in this article, which doesn't really sound encyclopedic; remove.
Basic terms should be linked (J. Sherrod Taylor, Mumbai, etc.) Many are, but having a few more links wouldn't hurt.
Refs 4-6 need dates/accessdates.
As a whole, the article reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The article was a university project so I'm not too surprised, but it would require a copyedit by an uninvolved user to iron out the edges.

Due in particular to the last point, as well as the unlikelihood of the issues being fixed (the class is over so I'm sure those involved have moved on) I'm closing the review as failed. Should anyone be interested in making the changes over the next couple days I'll undo the fail, just let me know. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]