Talk:Frontostriatal circuit

1. Quality of Information: 1

2. Article size: 0

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

8. Writing: 1

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

Total: 13 out of 20

Comments: The article size is too small and a lot more information needs to be added. The references sections needs to be updated as well. With a lot more detail, the article will be a informative read.

SindhujaPadmanabhan (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.Tpatel45 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dershika Patel (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)== Wiki Article Peer Review for BMED 4752: Neurosceince ==

1. Quality of Information: 0

2. Article size:0 (The article was of inadequate length)

3. Readability: 1

4. Refs: 1 (only 5 citations existed on November 19)

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 1

7. Formatting:1

8. Writing: 1 (There are many incidences where words such as "the", "a", etc. are missing and makes it difficult to read)

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?:0_______________Total: 9 out of 20

Comments: This article does not meet most of the requirements that were stated by the rubric for the assignment. The article contains a very limited amount of information and requires more research to be performed to create an adequate article. It also appears to not have even a lengthier outline to help support the article.Dershika Patel (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.Tpatel45 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 1

• The article could definitely be more informative...There isn't much here, yet.

2. Article size: 0

• Article is <1/3 the size it should have been.
• Please expand, some of the information was there already, authored by others.

3. Readability: 1

• It would be good to break up the longer sentences into multiple shorter sentences.

4. Refs: 1

• Only 5 Citations out of 10.

5. Links: 2

• You have links but you could link to frontal eye fields (FEF) too. Some may not know what FEF are. I know it exists because my topic is supplementary eye fields.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

• Sure.

7. Formatting: 1

• Could do with adding some pictures, maybe a brain image with frontostriatal circuit areas highlighted. (With some reference areas also labeled.)

8. Writing: 1

• Same comment as what Dershika said.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

• I am not sure, but maybe you have edited this page without being logged in, before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaswatPanda (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

10. Outstanding?:0

• It can be outstanding if you add more media to the article and expand on the sections you have!

Total: 11 out of 20Peer Reviewed by: SaswatSaswatPanda (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. I have expanded some sections and added an image.Tpatel45 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for writing an extra chapter about a simple typing error - I think that the word "lability" is meant, but it could also be "liability", so I didn't correct it because I don't want to correct it by the wrong word... --79.243.228.202 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the word.--Tpatel45 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Excoriation disorder cites laterality in the neurological causes of the disorder. This aspect is not cited within this page. Anacforcelli (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)