Wikipedia:Peer review/Summation (neurophysiology)/archive1

Summation (neurophysiology)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think you can do a lot better with this article considering that there are a lot of information about it (it may have been difficult because you have too much information and you don't know what to add). On the history section, you can add more details to describe the historic findings so that the general public can read and understand the article as well. You may want to add links referring to another article on wikipedia (such as End Plate Potential and MEPP) or if there is not already an article about it, you can expand on that topic by creating a sub-heading (I don't think MEPP article is currently present so you can possibly expand on this (figures would help). The focus of the article should be summation. As such, I think more details and focus should be given to temporal and spatial summation section. All other sections are probably mentioned in other articles but it wouldn't hurt to add more relevant information for the flow of the article. More of mechanisms and biochemistry involved in summation would be helpful. If there are any current research related to summation, you can add that at the end of the article to conclude. Finally, I think more references should be found to better support and elucidate the article. Thanks, Young B. (talk)

• I am unclear. Are you submitting a PR so that you can review the article? PR is usually for articles that are well developed and are getting close to FA quality. If you are aware of the issues with an article, you would normally resolve those first before bringing it here.—RJH (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's Peer review process "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy "2.Articles with major cleanup banners in place can not be submitted for peer review." This already has FIVE major cleanup banners, all citation needed. PR is a place to point out problems, but is not necessarily a place where such problems are fixed. I also see the nominator has made no edits to the article, so I am closing this PR in accordance with Peer review/Request removal policy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)