Talk:Gain-field encoding
![]() | This article is rated Start-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. |
Currently Under Renovation
[edit]I am currently updating this page for an assignment at Georgia Tech. Please feel free to suggest further improvements while this article undergoes this process. Sdavis32(talk)
Peer Review-Anshul Das
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 1 -- The article, though interesting, lacks some depth. It's size, ~7,000 kB, indicates that there is still work to be done, so maybe not all the information is there yet. As for now, however, the article is only a shallow level analysis.
2. Article size: 0 -- Does not meet the 15,0000 kB requirement.
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1 -- The majority are primary sources, and only is one more than the required 10.
5. Links: 1 -- There are some terms that could be internally referenced in Wikipedia such as "limb motion", "motor areas of the brain", etc.
6. Responsive to comments: 1 -- There has been minimal activity on this talk page and has not reached out to wiki editors on the article's talk page or user talk page
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
Total: 13 out of 20 Anshuldas (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
===
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 1 - What's there looks good, but more info is needed.
2. Article size: 0 - Not at the 15kB mark yet.
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 - Glad to see you're openness on the talk page. Make sure to respond if anyone does post.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 - Need to go above and beyond, not just meet the minimum requirements. Maybe pictures or more external links.
Total: 16 out of 20
Matthew Czerwonka (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 3
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 1
- Under the 15 kB minimum
3. Readability: 1
- Could define things like gain field and expand on sentences like:
- "The input from these neurons is taken multiplicatively"
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
A few errors/oddly worded parts
- "individuals external environment"
- individual's
- "The process of writing "
- might say encoding or something, maybe with a link
- "This opposes the case of other parts of the PPC such as area 5a"
- wording is kind of weird here
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
- Has potential but is unfinished. A picture or two might be helpful in understanding how nerve stimuli become models in the brain.
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20