Mtportman
Hey Mark-
My name is Alexandra and I am in your neuroscience class with Dr. Burdo. I read over your article and thought it was really interesting and well written. I thought of a few things that perhaps you guys could expand upon to make your article better. Please don't think I'm being critical, I'm just simply completing my "peer review" part of the assignment. These are just suggestions, like I said-I think the article is great!
First: When you list the specific species that demonstrate this quality, perhaps it would be beneficial if you discussed how this was discovered in the first place, and what the experimental technique/guidelines were for determining which animals exhibited this quality. If the procedure is similar for all of the species, maybe you could just tell about it once. Otherwise, incorporating individual studies and the unique techniques would add more scientific depth to your article.
Next, while reading your article I was asking myself "where did this come from, how did it develop?" In other words, is there any evolutionary evidence for this concept? It might be cool if you did a "history" section noting when it was first discovered, how it has progressed, etc. I know the resources are scarce, so this information might not even be available.
Finally, just a last minute touch-I think it would really help your article if you guys could add a picture of two of the difference between a "regular" brain (or EEG) versus one that exhibits the USWS. Once again, maybe this can be found by incorporating a specific study and using an image from that (granted you have the rights to).
But, overall, I thought this was one of the better articles that I've read. Sorry for being picky, but obviously that's what we have to do to complete the assignment. Please feel free to comment on our article, Rostral Migratory stream. We welcome your comments. Good job!
Thank you! Alexandra
Pretkennedy (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)pretkennedy
Hi. I followed your group's additions with interest. Have you noticed what's happened to the article since you stopped editing it? Do you think it might get better, or is it a hopeless mess now? I'm tempted to revert to the morning of 21 November, before user Cseime edited. Does your group think that is a good idea? I'll watch this page for any answer from you. Cheers, Hordaland (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, sorry our schedules have been very hectic with midterms and with Thanksgiving break. Our group will be meeting again to discuss the changes (and likely make many modifications or just revert the article back to 21 November). I too agree that the additions are very unorganized, out of scope, or repetitive. If you believe it would be wise to revert back to avoid further confusion/annoy people on wikipedia, please feel free to do so as I am not entirely aware of how to do so without messing anything else up (though I am guessing it would involve just hitting undo on the "view history tab," again if that is wrong I don't want to mess it up, so feel free to undo his results. I will discuss this matter with him as well and try and explain a few things to him. Thanks for all your help and sorry for the delayed response! Mtportman (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy your group is not abandoning the article! I'll leave reversion up to you. It is not difficult: go to this diff and click on "Revision as of 8:31". You'll get a warning that you're about to edit an old version of the article. Click Edit, and save and you're there.
- Your good faith attempt at communicating with the user is to your credit. Cheers, Hordaland (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)