Talk:Vision rehabilitation

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.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

note

Please consider that this article started as a course assignment and need more improvement. Please give any comment for future proposal. More contents will be added as soon as information are gathered. Followings are just grading from peers in the class. Thank you and if you have any question, please use this talk page or my talk page. JaeHyung Choi (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 0

good for the information that's actually there, but missing many sections including what the article should actually be talking about

2. Article size: 0

only about half the required byte total

3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 0

only half the required number of references

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: 14 out of 20

Michaelrchen (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I was still on the process of improving articles with different experts. Missed section is filled now and the size is over the required byte. And, I fixed all the references and any materials you advised. Thank you again :) JaeHyung Choi (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 1

a lot of missing sections and it feels like the sections that are there are incomplete

2. Article size:0

not enough kb

3. Readability:2
4. Refs:0

need at least 10 ref!

5. Links:2

have some hyperlinking to pages that don't exist yet

6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting:2
8. Writing:1

encyclopedia style!

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?:0

definitely needs a lot more work

_______________
Total: 12 out of 20 Arnabrchakrab (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, I did not have enough time to compile all the materials needed to put into each sections. However, everything is fixed and good to go. Filled out enough references, size requirement,and information. Please look over and give any other comments if necessary. Thank you. JaeHyung Choi (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 1 -Because the article was short, some of the quality could have been better.
2. Article size: 0 -The article submitted at the appropriate time was only about 7,500 bytes.
3. Readability: 0 -The lack of information in some of the sections made it impossible to read, much less any sort of actual readability.
4. Refs: 0 -Only have the references, although these were mostly recent.
5. Links: 1 -Need more links (or at least link something the first time it is mentioned, like low vision)
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 0 -In the basic background section, I would use subsections instead of lists. Since this is an encyclopedia, I think the tables should be more stand-alone (i.e., don't reference them in the text as "see the table below").
8. Writing: 1 -Some of the sentences are difficult to read because of poor grammar.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0 This article needs a lot of work, but I think you're fixing it.
_______________ Total: 7 out of 20

Tyler Chappel (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation. You gave me a great comment to improve my Wikipedia page. Thank you for your honest comments. I fixed all the requirements necessary to show it to the professionals. Please give any other comments if necessary. Thank you. JaeHyung Choi (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Required

“Gene therapy seems to be the most prominent field that might be able to restore vision through therapy. However, research indicates gene therapy may worsen symptoms, cause them to last longer or lead to further complications.“

I believe this statement must be supported with evidence and reference to recent scientific studies and research. 197.47.223.189 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]