Talk:Traumatic brain injury modeling

Big thank you to everyone that reviewed this article and helped me make it better! I've tried to get the bulk of your suggestions done, and any future critiques are welcome.

Matthew Czerwonka (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

1. Quality of Information: 1

Looks like you have the start of some good information. The references with dates are recent. It could use a little more explanation, see readability, below.

2. Article size: 0

Only about 8,000 bytes.

3. Readability: 1

The article needs a little more explanation, as it was not always clear. I had to re-read some things to understand what you were explaining, so it may be difficult to read for a lay person.

4. Refs: 1

Only five references and they did not seem complete. Some where lacking dates and pmid, etc.

5. Links: 1

Links were present but I saw a couple of places where links could be added. For example, elastic deformation, modeling, cortical layer, cell-cell interaction, wave propagation, in vivo, in vitro, etc. are all things that I think could be linked (see WP:UNDERLINK). May also be useful to go to the main TBI page and add a link to your page.

6. Responsive to comments: N/A

There are no comments yet, so it would be hard to reply.

7. Formatting: 1

Headings need to be in sentence case (First word capitalized, everything else lowercase, see WP:HEADINGS).

8. Writing: 1

Grammar was good, but there was still some awkward wording. For example:

Intro:"There are an estimated 1.7 million cases of TBI per year, and does not take into account the lasting affects that TBI may cause."

If there are 1.7 mil reported cases a year, then those cases with lasting effects must be included in this, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I think you could take out primary and just have "Types of TBI models" as your section heading. Are there other types of models besides the ones you listed?

In vivo: You also mention "specialization" of the models in your types of models section. What is specialization?

In vivo: "While this gives a better understanding of the reactions to TBI as a whole, in vivo models have many effects that are not solely due to the injury[2] , which may cause a misattribution of the causes to effects that have nothing to do with the injury itself." This sentence may be clearer if broken up and simpler wording was used.

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

10. Outstanding?: 0

Just needs more to make it an outstanding article. Maybe you could add more explanation of how these models are used to make real-world solutions. How is the data obtained from these models used? Also, what kind of neurons are used in in vitro models? Human or animal? In what animals are in vivo experiments typically done? Is the animal used an accurate model of TBI in humans?

_______________

Total: 8 out of 20

Emily Croft (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

---

1. Quality of Information: 1
information seems to be up-to-date with what is available sources-wise, but definitely in need of more information in order to make this topic well-rounded.
2. Article size: 0
<8,000 bytes, which is less than the minimum required
3. Readability: 1
this article is a bit wordy and has some pretty lengthy sentences as explanations of concepts, would help to shorten those and make the points more concise and clear at times. (example: The death of neurons is compounded by the fact that neurons do not undergo mitosis unless very specific conditions are met; not only are the cells removed, but they are also not replaced by new neurons). I think a much more concise sentence would make this point that is reached at the end of this sentence a lot more clear
4. Refs:0
less than the minimum required number of references, not generally cited well at all, and the citations in the text are all only primary sources without another paper to back up the primary source claims
5. Links: 1
there are some links present, but a lot more could be added to help the understandability and overall wikipedia connection of this article - like in vivo and in vitro perhaps? those are very often confused and likely would be helpful and beneficial links to include
6. Responsive to comments: 0
no comments from wikipedians currently other than peer reviews, but no edits done to show responsiveness to review posted 3 days ago
7. Formatting: 1
headings are not appropriately styled for wikipedia - need to be all lowercase aside from first word - see WP:HEADINGS
8. Writing: 1
The writing is good grammatically, but the readibality (as mentioned above) is difficult. Another example of this is the entire section about difficulties & limitations - it is very wordy and lengthy to explain why a brain model is complex. I think a lot less "fluff" would be very beneficial in getting to the point of why this is a difficult model to achieve
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
they are in need of a lot of improvements, first meeting the minimum requirements, but then further adding and contributing to the fullness of wikipedia with this article in order to make it really outstanding.
_______________
Total: 7 /20

---

Katie Cottrell (talk) 9:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

---

---

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 0
- It's about 7,976 bytes. Needs additional content
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 0
- Needs more references.
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
- No comments found in the talk pages.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
-There is room for improvement. Requires some more info for the final submission. Pictures, graphs, tables, charts would help with better understanding of the subject
_____________________
Total: 14/20
NiayeshRahimiCortese (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)