Talk:Neurocardiology

Medicine: Cardiology / Neurology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wikification Notes[edit]

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.

I just want to inform that I am currently doing extensive research on this topic for a neuroscience project. I will be adding chunks of information to your page within the next few weeks. Please let me know if you have any feedback to offer.Lisa M Johnson (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the formatting of the numbered list to wikipedia standard, replaced a bolded term with a wiki link, removed unsourced tag since there are external references listed at the bottom. Also, marked it as in need of expert attention. DLPanther 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMED 4752: Peer Review[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 2

Comment: Very clear and concise information. Has at least 3 peer-reviewed sources from recent years.

2. Article size: 2

Comment: Exceeds 15,000 requirement

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

Comment: At least 10 references and follow wiki guidelines.

5. Links: 1

Comment: Links to other wiki pages but NO red links

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

Comments: Follows guidelines for correct formatting and has class banner on talk page

8. Writing: 1

Comments: Generally reads well. A couple of grammatical errors/sentence phrasing. In stress topic, change "your hypothalamus" to "The hypothalamus" in the second paragraph.

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

10. Outstanding?: 2

Comments: Great picture!

__________________________

Total: 18 out of 20

Jacob Johnson (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are fine (See #5; they are needed when an article needs creation but is missing. Red links to articles that actually exist, however, are not fine.). Sheng Jiang (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some red links anyway. There can always be more wikipedia pages that can be created. I corrected the grammar error regarding the "your" hypothalamus statement. Overall, thank you for your feedback, a wikipedia page is never fully complete. Lisa M Johnson (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

_______________
1. Quality of Information: 1
Some information don't appear very encyclopedic.
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 1
Consider removing "How Your nervous System Gets Out of Sync" as a reference
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 0
The writing doesn't seem to have a completely Neutral point of view; this is probably why the "needs attention from an expert in medicine" banner was added. In addition, some writing not suitable for wikipedia ("In a study relating to relationship of neurocardiology of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, they hypothesized...", "Doctors are trained for specifically one specialty and as a result not as knowledgeable about the others, even though they all related to the same thing, the human body.")
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
Needs some more work done, especially on the writing part.
_______________
Total: 14 out of 20
Sheng Jiang (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to keep the reference you suggested that I take out. Wikipedia uses websites; it's not primarily a site for all journal article references. As far as a "neutral point of view," this is a relatively new topic so that not many studies have been completed on it. I have a wide variety, but there are not many debated topics to be able to take a neutral stance, let alone a one-sided argument. However, I can try to rephrase some sentences to tae away from this perspective. Thank you for your feedback. Lisa M Johnson (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you mean about the need for a more neutral stance in the problems section. I revised the information and added other perspectives on the topic of doctors specializing in a medical field. Thank you. Lisa M Johnson (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size:2
3. Readability:2
4. Refs:2
5. Links: 1 Please look for red links as well
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1 there are certain typos like 'of that of that' in the paragarph under medication. Your first paragraph on the problem section doesn't have any references

and it seems like your own opinion, please fix it.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Please try to avoid using sentences like "Further studies need to be conducted..." "As stated previously..." to make it sound more like a wiki article
_______________ Total: 17 out of 20
Overall, Neurocardiology is an interesting topic. It's good that you already had some references with PMID!

MeeraEJohn (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some red links, even though they are not needed for all wiki pages. In addition, I corrected some typos and added more citations to make sure I didnt leave anything else out. Some sentences were rephrased so that the jargon was more similar to wiki articles. Thank you for your feedback. Lisa M Johnson (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]