Talk:Theta model

Neuroscience C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

List of edits needed

Need to address the following points (1 = good, 0.5 = fair, 0.0 = poor)

First sentence brief and definitional? 0.9

Too many parenthetical phrases for a first sentence

Concise summary and overview of entire article? 0.9

Not clear that the QIF model belongs in introduction.

Clear description of each of the key topics listed in the outline? 0.7

Says the theta model "blows up" near the bifurcation when the state variables actually remain bounded. Probably confused by the period blowing up. Some minor errors, e.g. in general a function does not have a closed form for its integral, much less for the PRC of the theta model.

Appropriate depth of detail? 0.9

Some key details missing, e.g. QIF model definition lacks description of reset.

Links to other Wikipedia articles for key words mentioned in entry? 0.9

Good, but could have more.

From 3 to 10 external links (External Links)? 0.5

Mostly links to other wikipedia articles, remaining 2 to scholarpedia --BBAmp (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating

Someone rated this C-class, so by the quality scale guide, "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material." Please let me know what is irrelevant or missing so I can fix the issue. BBAmp (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see who assessed the article by looking at the History of this talk page (it was Tryptofish). I myself would probably have assessed the article as B class, but I can see the justification for C. The main reasons are (a) the citations are formatted in a nonstandard way that makes it harder than necessary to look them up or to find the articles online; (b) more importantly, the whole article, even the lead, is so technical that only somebody deeply versed in mathematical modeling would get anything at all out of it. I think it would be possible for the lead to describe the model in a way that would convey the basic concept to non-mathematicians, by saying that the theta model idealizes a neuron as always firing in an oscillatory pattern, and has only one state variable, theta, which represents the phase of the oscillation. But one way or another this is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, and I hope you don't get the idea that Tryptofish or I think otherwise. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]