Talk:Supplementary eye field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)[edit]

Comments: I realize the article has improved, but it is graded off of Nov. 18th. The content that was there was good, but there just was not a whole lot of it. This is why the article size was rated a 1, and the references and links were 1. I gave the writing a 1, just because there was not much to read. The article did have a picture, but nothing that made it stand out to be amazing since it was still not the right size article. The newest version of the article has improved - but it still needs more content to be a great article. I think if it continues in the direction that it is going, then it will be fine! Crowen4 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to Reviewer 1[edit]

Hello, thanks for your comments. I have taken them into account and edited my page to be far more informative, and lengthy. I've gotten rid of the saccade trace picture and added three brain maps to make it easier for people to know where the SEF is and where the SEF is relative to the FEF.

Hopefully it is a good article now! SaswatPanda (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Article Critique By Tuan Nguyen (as of 11/25/2013)[edit]

This article needs more information on each sub-topic and needs to improve on the readability. The author also need to fix his/her writing because there are grammar, verb tense and punctuation error need to be fixed.

Reply to Tuan[edit]

Hello, I have since edited this article to fix punctuation errors and grammar.

Hopefully you will look at it once more and it will work for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaswatPanda (talkcontribs) 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)[edit]

Comments: A lot more detail needs to be added and the article doesn't match the size requirement which is why points have been taken off. Adding the picture makes it nice and visual. The references need to be updated. Overall, with more information, it will look great.

SindhujaPadmanabhan (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Sindhuja[edit]

Thank you for your comment. I have since made my article much longer! I think it now meets all of the criteria of the assignment and is now a much nicer article!

SaswatPanda (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)