Talk:Megalencephaly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Megalencephaly is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Future Edits[edit]

Planning to redo references to meet wikipedia guidelines/requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcjohnson303 (talkcontribs) 23:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


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: 1 Please fix typos and some grammatical mistakes
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Please try to use some pictures if possible, and it might also be a good idea to have the history section in the beginning instead of having it in the end.
_______________ Total: 18 out of 20
Overall, I feel like I learned something about this topic!

MeeraEJohn (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


  • Fixed typos and grammatical mistakes
  • Moved History section
  • Very difficult to find an appropriate image from wikicommons that is informative for this article. Hope that this article is outstanding with the high use of references (20 total).

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Peer Review[edit]

_______________
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
Consider moving history section to beginning of content
4. Refs: 1
Consider avoiding yahoo medicine and cerebral palsy network (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))
5. Links: 2
Consider linking neuronal proliferation to Neural_development
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting:2
8. Writing: 1
Sentences do not flow very well
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?:1
Does read like wikipedia article
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
Sheng Jiang (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


  • Updated two references (yahoo and cerebral palsy) with more acceptable sources per wiki guidelines
  • History section moved
  • Changed neuronal proliferation and added neurogenesis as link. This is a more appropriate page.
  • Fixed grammatical errors and sentence flow.

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 0 - I don’t see any talk responses yet.
7. Formatting: 2 - Follows a logical progression. Easy for a reader who knows nothing about your topic to follow.
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 - reads like a Wikipedia Page
_______________ Total: 18 out of 20
HeatherAlysiaThompsonJenkins (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


  • No talk responses because I have not had any comments on my TALK page besides peer reviews!!

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)