Talk:SGK1
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Please let me know if you have any questions on concerns! Allison gainer (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 1
[edit]1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1
A lot of your references are pretty old, I didn’t see any recent ones.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
No comments yet
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
This article is awesome. It has a ton of detail and goes into so many areas, most of which are very complex and I can tell they took a lot of time to understand. It was also very well formatted and had good grammar. I am impressed.
_______________
Total: 19 out of 20
Kfagan6 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Kiley! However, I am confused about your reference grade. I completely understand that a lot of the references are aged a bit, but I have two sources that are within the 2010-2013 range. I value your feedback! Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Allison gainer (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 2
[edit]- Quality of Information (2/2): Lots of detail!
- Article size (2/2): ~24000 bytes
- Readability (1.5/2): Difficult to read through the whole article because of terms used. At times felt like it was too science-heavy and would be difficult for an average person to understand, but that may just be the nature of the topic.
- Refs (2/2): Lots of references! Disagree with Kiley about the age of the references. I feel like for the research that has been done on SGK1, most was done in the 1990s to early 2000s.
- Links (2/2): Great use of links throughout. Helpful to have on such a complex topic.
- Responsive to comments (1/2): Hasn’t responded to Kiley’s post that was four days ago.
- Formatting (2/2): Great headings and subheadings. Liked the bulleted lists as well.
- Writing (2/2): Good writing. Concise and very detailed.
- Used real name or has real name on User TALK page (2/2): Allisongainer as username
- Outstanding? (2/2): I could tell a lot of work was put into this article. Great job.
Total: 18.5 out of 20 Jenna Fair (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Jenna! I do agree that the topic is quite vocabulary intensive. I tried to link to other sources and wikipedia articles as much as I could, in hopes others use for reference. I will take your comments and try to make it easier to read. I appreciate your input! Allison gainer (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 3
[edit]- Quality of Information (2/2)
- Article size (2/2)
- Readability (2/2)
- Refs (2/2)
- Links (2/2)
- Responsive to comments (2/2)
- Formatting (2/2)
- Writing (2/2)
- Used real name or has real name on User TALK page (2/2)
- Outstanding? (2/2)
Great Job! Total: 20 out of 20 Ruthfogg (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Ruth! Allison gainer (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)