Talk:Computational neurogenetic modeling
 | This article is rated Stub-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. |
Sources[edit]
The majority of the papers published on this topic seem to be from one group, if any could be found from other researchers it would be helpful to add them. It's possible that other groups are pursuing this topic under a different name.
Peer Review-Anshul Das[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 1 -- Perhaps try and reach out to Wiki editors on your own user talk page or the article's talk page for advice and further editing.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 -- Your topic is interesting, but maybe try adding some forms of visual stimulation other than text, such as a picture.
Total: 18 out of 20 Anshuldas (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Added a few pictures to illustrate some of the more general concepts. TDavies3 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer review-Emily Croft[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1
- Recent refs, but missing pubmed ID on the journal articles. It would also be interesting to see if other researchers are working on similar projects, as most of your refs seem to be from the same group. Section on artificial neural network had no sources cited within it.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 1
- Headings should be in sentence case according to the manual of style
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Presented a lot of information, and would be better with more support from refs and fixing the style. _______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Emily Croft (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed the formatting and added references used for ANN section, only one citation was in PubMed so I added a DOI or url to the rest. TDavies3 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 1 - Since no wikipedian has posted as of yet, maybe just add a sentence or two explaining your openness to ideas on this talk page.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2 - Always a good idea to re-read
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
Total: 19 out of 20
Matthew Czerwonka (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)