This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.
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.
This is a nice article in several respects. I am assessing it as C class, though, because the writing style is a bit too complex for Wikipedia's target audience, and because it relies too heavily on primary sources. (A Wikipedia article, unlike an article in a scientific journal, should reference mainly secondary sources such as review papers or textbooks.) Looie496 (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This reads like an upper 2nd class university essay. Too much waffle, not enough structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpbrown (talk • contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The basic exposition is useful and ok, but it needs a lot of work and refinement, is sometimes rather misleading or inaccurate, and I'm inclined to agree with the immediately preceding comment. Any one using this article as a basis for an essay or report should use extreme caution. On the other hand, it is an important and difficult topic, and the article is a good start.Paulhummerman (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think digital metaplasticity really belongs here. Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article, but seeing how little information there is on the topic, maybe it should be removed completely. Allethrin (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It certainly looks awkward the way it currently appears. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)