Talk:Preferential motor reinnervation
 | This article is rated C-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. |
This page was recently taken down/deleted, and has now been re-created with citations better handled. Though I searched for reviews, there were not many on this topic. I tried to add multiple citations as well as use a textbook and review articles as much as possible. This is an ongoing project and I will continue to work on it, as well as not let it stay an orphan page. Input is welcome! Kaitlyncottrell (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Katie
Peer Review[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
- There are some parts of the article that are oddly phrased (ex. " the peripheral nervous system has somewhat of an ability to regrow the cut nerves"). I would suggest reading through the article out loud, and rewording some of the confusing/awkward phrases.
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?:2
_______________
Total:19/20
Note: This article was submitted after 18 November 2013 (based on the history page). The review above was given for the article's current version.
Mcorrin3 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
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
-Section titles could be a little more concise
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
-Real name not present on user talk page- easily fixed.
10. Outstanding?: 2
-Still needs a lot of work.
_______________
Total: 20 out of 20
Ryan Chu (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
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
-Section titles have questions. I was told that they can not be in question format. Please double check that
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total: 20 out of 20
NiayeshRahimiCortese (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)