Talk:Mirror-touch synesthesia

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

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 Review 1

1. Quality of Information: 2 Solid information, well referenced.

2. Article size: 2 - Meets requirement set by Dr. Potter.

3. Readability: 2 - Worded in terms such that a layperson would understand.

4. Refs: 1 - Does not meet minimum requirement set by Dr. Potter

5. Links: 1 - Links to other Wikipedia articles is minimal.

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - No comments are present.

7. Formatting: 2 - Arranged in sensible order.

8. Writing: 2 - Well written.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 - Real name was used as user account.

10. Outstanding?: 2 - Nice topic to pick, I was surprised it did not already have a page.

Total: 18/20

P.S. Missing content on current research.

Skarthikeyan3 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1 - Does not have at least 10 references. Only has 8.

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 2

Total: 19/20

JoowonJun (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 3

1. Quality of Information: 2 - Very informative article

2. Article Size: 2 - Meets criterion

3. Readability: 2 - Very easy to read

4. References: 1 - Needs more references. May need to try finding different authors.

5. Links: 2 - Has many good side links

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1 - Introduction paragraph seems very long. Consider putting parts of it into more specific subcategories. Citing seems a bit clunky (e.g. citing the Blakemore paper almost every line), try pushing to end of each section.

8. Writing: 2 - No errors

9. Real Name: 2

10. Outstanding: 1 - Very informative, just needs slight reorganization (top heavy article).

Total: 17/20

Rkasinadhuni3 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to peer review comments

Added more links throughout the article and reformatted the page so that there is a small intro at the top of the page and the rest of the summary is right below the table of contents. The citations were also fixed. They are no longer clunky and they were put outside of periods. With regard to choosing more references, or references from different authors, Dr. Michael Banissy is a leading researcher for mirror touch synesthesia, and thus many of the publications were his. It's a fairly recent topic (first case reported in 2007), so there is not much more out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahwish Khan (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]