User talk:Laura McKenzie/Neuro sandbox
Assessments[edit]
From main article, but more appropriate here
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 –had no comments yet
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 – very thorough on citation and background information on the anatomy and physiology, could be outstanding if you went more into how problems in the physiology results in dysosmia _______________ Total: 19 out of 20
Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size:2 over 15,000
3. Readability:2
4. Refs:2 over 10 refs.
5. Links:2 links are used when needed
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting:2 great flow, information is well developed
8. Writing:2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 ( used name)
10. Outstanding?:2 great job, very informative. Subject is well described and all background information is given. _______________ Total:20 out of 20
P J McGill (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1 Comments: I would try to add just a few more spread out throughout the article to cover all sections.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
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) 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)