Talk:Cholinergic neuron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. Quality of Information (1/2): Images would have helped in maintaining my interest in the entire page. Not sure if this is applicable here or in the formatting section. In any case, I’ll only take a point in this section and not formatting.
  2. Article size (2/2): ~21000 bytes
  3. Readability (2/2): Great job putting scientific jargon into layman’s terms. Very easy to read.
  4. Refs (2/2): Very recent references that are journal articles.
  5. Links (1/2): Had some links but not enough to warrant a 2/2. Not sure if it’s because the information is not located elsewhere on Wikipedia, but a lot of unlinked things seemed like very basic concepts.
  6. Responsive to comments (2/2): Not applicable as there are no comments yet.
  7. Formatting (2/2): Great headings and subheadings.
  8. Writing (2/2): Looks like a lot of work went into this especially getting good sources.
  9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page (2/2): KelseyGratton
  10. Outstanding? (1.5/2): Well written, but nothing really stood out to me. Not a bad article though!


Total: 17.5 out of 20 Jenna Fair (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I will be sure to add more links and look through images to find something that could add value to the page. KelseyGratton (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. Quality of Information: 2 (a lot recent research articles)
  2. Article size: 2 (~20,500)
  3. Readability: 2 (extremely easy to follow, follows wikipedia guidelines)
  4. Refs: 2
  5. Links: 1

Apply more wikipedia links throughout the paper. There are links in the beginning, but they become scarce throughout.

  1. Responsive to comments: 2 (<24 hours so I feel it is okay that a response hasn't been posted for the comment above)
  2. Formatting: 2
  3. Writing: 1

easy to read, however, make sure you proof read and remove unnecessary commas and such.

  1. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
  2. Outstanding?: 1

I think once more links are placed and it is proofread, it will be outstanding!

Total: 17 out of 20 Allison gainer (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely add in more links and proof read the article a couple more times, hopefully this will help with overall readability of the page. KelseyGratton (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. Quality of Information (1/2) There seem to be not very many secondary sources.
  2. Article size (2/2)
  3. Readability (2/2)
  4. Refs (2/2)
  5. Links (2/2)
  6. Responsive to comments (2/2)
  7. Formatting (2/2)
  8. Writing (2/2)
  9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page (2/2)
  10. Outstanding? (2/2)

Total: 19 out of 20 Ruthfogg (talk) 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will double check my sources and make sure they are secondary. KelseyGratton (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

As per WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." and "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." (emphasis added.) The lead of this article currently contains the statements "The parasympathetic nervous system uses acetylcholine almost exclusively, along with neuromuscular junctions, preganglionic neurons of the sympathetic nervous system, the basal forebrain, and some brain stem complexes. Cholinergic neurons provide the primary source of acetylcholine to the cerebral cortex, and are known for their role in promoting cortical activation during both wakefulness and during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep." These statement seem to appear only in the lead section, and are not summaries of any content in the body of the article. Such content should be added, or the statements removed from the lead section. DES (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)