Talk:Place attachment
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Place attachment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Li oneill.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Page creation[edit]
This article expands upon the place attachment section in the environmental psychology page as the subject of my Wiki project in Introduction to Neuroscience at Georgia Tech during the Fall 2013 semester. Adrienne.m.jones (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nice job, Adrienne.m.jones! Thanks for your contribution. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer reviews[edit]
Review #1[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 1
The information was presented very well, but it was heavily focused on psychology concepts. This is for neuroscience, and never discusses research regarding the brain and how it applies to the topic of place attachment. Maybe try to go into more detail on plasticity.
2. Article size: 2
19,000 bytes was well into the range for this project
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1
Some of your references were cited over 10 times, while others were only used once. It appeared to be heavily weighted towards a select number of sources.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments:2
7. Formatting: 2
Good layout and organization of subtitles
8. Writing: 2
Word choices were an appropriate level for this assignment
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
There wasn't anything in particular that made this page stand out from others. No choices of media, there were a lot of references, but could be more detailed.
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Lisa M Johnson (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Review #2[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 2
Comment: Very high quality information. Also has at least 3 peer-reviewed sources from recent years.
2. Article size: 2
Comment: Exceeds 15,000 requirement
3. Readability: 2
Comments: Extremely readable. Most or all terms are defined and used properly in context.
4. Refs: 1
Comment: At least 10 references but some are missing doi and most are missing pubmedID
5. Links: 2
Comment: Links to other wiki pages and red links
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
Comments: Follows guidelines for correct formatting and has class banner on talk page
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
Comments: Has a lot of useful references and the articles is generally pretty detailed and creative.
__________________________
Total: 19 out of 20
Jacob Johnson (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Review #3[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size:2
3. Readability:2
4. Refs:2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Please try to include any pictures if you can find/ make any. Maybe a diagram for tripartite model. Also, include PMIDs for your references.
Overall, I enjoyed reading your article! Nice work!
_______________
Total: 19 out of 20
MeeraEJohn (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)