Talk:Gain-field encoding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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

TDavies3 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)