Talk:Ecstatic seizure

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.

Peer reviews from fellow students[edit]

Peer reviews from classmates

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

3. Readability: 1

4. Refs:1

5. Links: 1

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:1

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2

10. Outstanding?:1

_______________

Total: 14 out of 20 The article was good and taught me a good bit about ecstatic seizures. Unfortunately, some of the information in the article did not directly pertain to the neuroscience behind ecstatic seizures. For example, I thought that the section on Dostoyevsky and his history was too long and that this section was not tremendously relevant to the topic of ecstatic seizures (from a neuroscience perspective). Additonally, I found many typos and grammatical errors throughout the text that can be easily fixed with a quick read-through. The article also did not cite enough sources (only 9) and did not link to many other pages (could link to topics such as anterior insular cortex, EEG, grand-Mal seizures, etc.). Additionally, the extended quotes that were placed in the article did not add much substance or information, and I would consider removing them. I would also suggest adding subsections to the page to help with organization of the article. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. I would be happy to discuss them with you. Harrisonbartlett (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information:2 All of the information seemed to be accurate and well thought out. I never questioned the validity of the article which is the question I asked myself throughout to ensure that it was all scientifically correct. I learned a good bit that I didn't know about and it was easy to comprehend. I would work on the narrative components of your article. I have the same issue with mine in that some parts get to be a little too similar to a story.

2. Article size:1 It is a little shy of the 15k requirement.

3. Readability:2 Again I was able to read the article without confusion.

4. Refs:1 Less than 10 and some of them are repeats. You need more peer reviewed literature in here to back your claims.

5. Links:1 There are only 6 links to outside articles in this article. There should be much more than that but this is an easy fix that won't take much time at all.

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:1 Some grammar and spelling issues. Go through and proofread again to get rid of these. Also again make sure to make it more of an article and less of a narrative.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2

10. Outstanding?:1

_______________ Total: 15 out of 20

Overall a good article. Most of the problems I found can be easily fixed by proofreading and adding brackets to link to other articles. But I do like the topic and I think that this is a page that can be valuable to many people out there. Hbarton3 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

________________

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article Size: 1 (less than 15kb)
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1 (too few and incomplete. Pages from the same article should not be separated as if they are different sources)
5. Links: 1 ("seizure", "epilepsy", "temporal lobe"... many other words can be hyperlinked for users that want to learn more)
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2 (Good. I don't know if this topic just has not had a lot of published material, but it felt like some of the sections could have more information)
8. Writing: 1 (there are a few grammatical errors. I like your use of quotes, but be careful with describing cases. Try not to deviate too far from the science, or it will feel like a story.)
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 (Overall, pretty good! Interesting history sections, but the more science-related sections felt cut short.)
Total: 15/20 LeilaniBarry (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews from fellow classmates do not appear to engage Wikipedia's internal assessment standards, and would be better placed on editor talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]