Talk:Neuroeffector junction/Georgia Institute of Technology Introduction to Neuroscience

1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size:2 3. Readability:2 4. Refs:2 5. Links:2 6. Responsive to comments:2 7. Formatting:2 8. Writing:2 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2 10. Outstanding?:2

Total: 20/20 Roanukz (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from Kelli Allen

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2 --- To make the article easier to read, I might make the top portion that was previously the introduction a bit shorter. With the extra information in the introduction, it might be better to move to another heading or create a new heading. Just a thought, but if you find all of that information necessary to the introduction, then it would be appropriate to leave it as such.
4. Refs: 0---There are not ten sources in the reference section.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 1---Autonomic nervous system and enteric nervous system links should be lowercase.
8. Writing: 2---Writing is concise and easy to read.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding: 1

_______________

Total: 17 out of 20 Kallen35 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from Nilton Yanez

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1 (not ten sources)
5. Links: 1 (not enough links)
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 (good article; in my opinion just work some more on the references and links and you should probably be fine)

Total: 18 out of 20 Nyanez1 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)