Talk:Neurocutaneous melanosis
 | 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. |
Peer Review
1. Quality of Information: 2 - Includes factual information
2. Article size: 1 - Does not meet size requirement set by Dr. Potter
3. Readability: 1 – More terminology should be defined
4. Refs: 2 – Has required amount of refs but need to make sure that each one is cited properly. Some refs do not have the year, or others have year and month
5. Links: 1 – more links should be added throughout the article
6. Responsive to comments: 2- No comments
7. Formatting: 2 – neat concise page
8. Writing: 2 – well written
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 – Used real name
10. Outstanding?: 1- More work should be done on the article to differentiate it from typical other articles on the internet.
Total: 16 out of 20
JahedaK (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 2
1. Factual Information: 2 - Up to date content
2. Size: 0 - does not meet requirements set by Dr. Potter
3. Readability: 2 - easy to read
4. References: 2 - Adequately referenced
5. Links: 2 - Has adequate amount of links
6. Talk Page Comments: 2 - Has no comments on talk page
7. Formatting: 2 - Neatly laid out
8. Writing: 2 - well written
9. Real Name: 2 - used real name
10. Outstanding: 2 - Very interesting topic
Total: 18/20
Mahwish Khan (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 3
1. Quality of Information: 2 - Good use of empirical analysis and neurologically specific facts.
2. Size: 1 - Just short of the minimum length.
3. Readability: 1 - Uses a lot of content-specific terminology without much defining (e.g. symptoms).
4. References: 2
5. Links: 2 - Links contained throughout and good use of red-tagging.
6. Responsiveness: 2
7. Formatting: 2 - Article structure makes sense and flows well.
8. Writing: 2 - No errors in the writing.
9. Real Name: 2
10. Outstanding: 1 - Really interesting topic, but feels very esoteric. More defining of terms and simpler language in some sections would help make it more lay-friendly.
Total: 17/20
Rkasinadhuni3 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)