Talk:Estrogen and neurodegenerative diseases
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | 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. |
note edit
This is Wen Xu's talk page.
1. Quality of Information: 1
Only have a few paragraphs out of whole article that relate estrogen to neurodegenerative diseases.
2. Article size: 1
Most of the paragraphs are not your own and are copied directly from other Wikipedia articles. This work should be your own.
3. Readability: 1
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
Should not be linking entire paragraphs.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1
Poor grammar made it somewhat difficult to read.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1
Could not find your real name anywhere.
10. Outstanding?: 0
_______________
Total: 13 out of 20
Ewatkins8 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1 There is a lot of extraneous information in the article. Focus on estrogen.
2. Article size: 1 How much of this your own original work?
3. Readability: 1 Too much extra information.
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1 Don't link whole paragraphs.
6. Responsive to comments: 1 Awaiting fixes.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1 A lot of grammar mistakes.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 0 Cannot find real name.
10. Outstanding?: 0 _______________ Total: 10 out of 20
Tam Van (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 1
Why was Parkinson's disease given a section, but Estrogen and Parkinson's Disease is blank? You don't need to write sections for Parkinson's disease, etc, that's what the links are for, those already have articles. Focus on the link between Estrogen and Parkinson's/Huntington's/etc, that's the point of the article
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
Could use some proofreading
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1
As mentioned in Quality of Information, lots of these sections are unnecessary and you should utilize links for the purpose of directing the reader to existing articles.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
Still needs some proofreading
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1
Not quite, could use some work
_______________
Total: 16 out of 20
--BrandonVerwijst (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fixed some part of my article and reorganized them. Thank you for your advices! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxu68 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that I also need to respond to peer review until Dr. Potter's grading came out, sorry for that.
I think my article was not very well organized since every part of my article were important to reach the same purpose--to well state the relationship of estrogen and neurodegenerative diseases.
I have already removed a lot of information that can be acquireduired from other wiki articles. I will reorganize the article recently.
For the grammar errors, I'm so sorry that I couldn't even recognize that I was making mistakes. I'm not a native English speaker. I tried to do well and planned to take writing courses next semester.
In the Alzheimer's disease part, the figure I cited was my own work. I will add more original work later. Hope you can see them.
Wxu68 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)