Talk:Spinal interneuron

Physiology Mid‑importance

	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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells.

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

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.

Untitled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is my first Wikipedia article, and I chose this "spinal interneuron" topic as an assignment for my neuroscience course. I appreciate your input and suggestions in making my article more informative and accurate. Please let me know if there is anything I could do to perfect this article. I have tried to follow Wikipedia's formatting guidelines for this neuroscience related article. As for the citations, there are only 14. When I wrote my original article, there were many more citations (peer reviewed journal articles) provided. However, the Wikipedia guidelines required me to add only the ones that were published in the past 10 years and were "Reviews". Although this is a course assignment, I will continue working on this article as an ongoing project. Thanks NiayeshRahimiCortese (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:MEDRS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi - please read over WP:MEDRS. This article has sourcing problems. I'm sorry if your instructor didn't go over our medical sourcing standards, but Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of primary sources etc in articles about medicine, and greatly prefers the use of review articles published in the last decade unless no such sources are available. For now, I've added some maintenance tags, and would encourage you to work in your sandbox until the WP:MEDRS problems are ironed out. I hate to do this since I see you've put a tremendous amount of work in to it, but we have strict sourcing standards for medical articles that your version didn't meet. Since a lot of other students (almost all) in your class have similar problems with their articles, I'll also be dropping your professor a general note. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. Quality of Information: 1

Good Information so far, but needs more.

2. Article size: 1

7KB/15KB, needs more

3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1

only 7 references; only 1 within the last 10 years.

5. Links: 1

only a couple outgoing links, needs more.

6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1

Several typos and grammatical errors.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0

Article is not finished

_______________
Total: 13/20
Mcorrin3 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 0

Incomplete

2. Article size:0

not enough kb

3. Readability:1

More structure needed

4. Refs:0

problem with references and not enough references

5. Links:1