Talk:Perisynaptic schwann cells

Physiology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1, meets size requirement, but no history before Nov 19th.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1, a couple more terms could have links

6. Responsive to comments: 2 (none to respond)

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________ Total: 18 out of 20

Laura McKenzie (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2 – great background information, well described.

2. Article size:2 15,000+

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs:2- 10

5. Links: 2 – large amount of links used

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting:2

8. Writing:2

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

10. Outstanding?:2 great article _______________ Total: 20 out of 20

P J McGill (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 1- fix naming as tagged from sandbox

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________ Total: 19 out of 20

AllisonMaloney (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]