Talk:Brain–computer interface
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brain–computer interface article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months ![]() |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | Brain–computer interface was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Brain–computer interface.
|
![]() | The contents of the Flexible brain-computer interface page were merged into Brain–computer interface. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Neural dust page were merged into Brain–computer interface. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dispencer17. Peer reviewers: Nduc5420.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review
General info
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Amcclanahan
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- Brain–computer interface
Peer review
I utilized Wikipedia's Peer Review template, which breaks peer review down into these categories:
Lead
- The lead section is a great introduction to the topic of brain-computer interface. It is short and to the point, as suggested by the Wiki writing style guide.
- The author implemented small changes that further clarified what modalities are classified as non-invasive, partially invasive, and invasive.
- I think this is a great lead paragraph. I don't recommend any changes to this section.
Content
- Endovascular Section:
- I appreciated the addition of the Stentrode paragraph in the endovascular section. The author used very recent and relevant research to keep this WikiPage up to date. This is such a new and forth coming field so I imagine there will be many additions to this page over time.
- The additions are well-cited and linked appropriately to their respective Wiki Pages when needed.
- I do find this section to be very medical terminology heavy, however, I believe that is unavoidable due to the complex nature of this topic. If possible, it may be beneficial to try to keep wording to easily digestible material for the general public - but I recognize how difficult this is with this topic.
- ECoG Section:
- Again, the author added groundbreaking and recent research to the article to keep it up to date.
- I think this was a nice update that highlights how far the medical community has come with this type of technology.
- EEG Section:
- In this section specifically the author added a systemic review of randomized controlled trials - which is the gold standard for citations for Wiki.
- I think this was a useful addition to this section to summarize the efficacy and potential of this technology.
Tone and Balance
- The author added some clarification to the wording in the communication section that helps the flow of the section.
Sources and Resources
- The author used many peer reviewed sources to back up his statements.
- As this is a new and emerging topic, he tried to use systemic reviews when possible.
- Since this is such an evolving field, the author properly cited primary research when necessary to keep the article up to date.
Organization
- I think the Wiki Page is well organized.
- I don't have any recommended changes.
Images and Media
- I really appreciated the hand-drawn image that the author added to the article. It very simply shows the differences between the modalities of BCIs.
- This was a great addition to the article and is visually pleasing to audiences.
Overall impressions
- The authors significantly contributed to this article's development.
- He tried his best to use systematic reviews and text book material, but this is such a new and evolving field that required primary sources to show the progress the medical community has made in recent years.
- I believe it may be hard for the lay person to read this entire article, but I also think that is due to the complexity of the topic.
- The author used appropriate linking and clarification to keep the article as easy to read as possible.
Categories:
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class neuroscience articles
- Mid-importance neuroscience articles
- B-Class Transhumanism articles
- Mid-importance Transhumanism articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Articles edited by connected contributors