Talk:Otolithic membrane

Assignment not submitted before 11:59:00 UTC Nov 18 grading most recent 11/20

1. Quality of the information: 2
   Good time range of sources, In-depth explanations
2. Article size: 1
   Late(16,641 bytes)
3. Readability: 1
   Use simpler language "quiescent" is not a term most readers would know. Overall the article was accessible to most readers, however data directly from papers was a little more difficult to understand.
4. References: 1
   More citations in the Evolution section would be helpful. The article heavily relies on source #1. Citations from other additional sources for the same information would strengthen the article.
5. Links: 2
   Link afferent
6. Responsive to Comments: 2
   no comments so no need for response
7. Formatting: 2
   Organization for this article was very strong
8. Writing: 2
   
9. Used Real Name: 2
10. Is Outstanding in some way: 1
    Good article but not outstanding

Total: (16/20 - penalty for being late)
Jsiemer3 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any further articles on the evolution of the otolithic membrane so I could not extend that section. I changed some of the more complicated terms, such as "quiescent". Thank you for the help. --Ryandrsmith (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of the information: 2
2. Article size: 1
   -1 for being late
3. Readability: 2
   
4. References: 2
   
5. Links: 2
   
6. Responsive to Comments: 2
   no comments so far
7. Formatting: 2
   excellent layout
8. Writing: 2
   
9. Used Real Name: 2
10. Is Outstanding in some way: 2
    I learned a lot about otolithic membrane. Hopefully the "research and modeling" part will be developed.

Total: (19/20 - penalty for being late)
JinYongSim (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. They were helpful for improving my article. --Ryandrsmith (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of the information: 2
   meet the requirement. Is there any reason that there are no writings for Research and Modeling?
2. Article size: 1
   Late...
3. Readability: 2
   Lots of jargon, but I believe it is because of the level of this topic.
4. References: 2
   Good to see there are different kind of references, such as book chapters, secondary resources. Remember to put the PMIDs in your references if applicable as Dr. Potter sent an email about it.
5. Links: 2
   Adequate links. But what is the purpose for linking asymmetry, mean?
6. Responsive to Comments: 2
   no comments.
7. Formatting: 2
   Nice organization. Instead of using micrometer, it is more common to use µm
8. Writing: 2
   Nice job.
9. Used Real Name: 2
10. Is Outstanding in some way: 1
    A good article, but not outstanding.

Total: (18/20) - penalty for being late)
Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! --Ryandrsmith (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

---