Talk:Computational neurogenetic modeling

Neuroscience Stub‑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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Peer Review-Anshul Das

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 1 -- Perhaps try and reach out to Wiki editors on your own user talk page or the article's talk page for advice and further editing.

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 -- Your topic is interesting, but maybe try adding some forms of visual stimulation other than text, such as a picture.

Total: 18 out of 20 Anshuldas (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review-Emily Croft

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1

Recent refs, but missing pubmed ID on the journal articles. It would also be interesting to see if other researchers are working on similar projects, as most of your refs seem to be from the same group. Section on artificial neural network had no sources cited within it.

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

Headings should be in sentence case according to the manual of style

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 Presented a lot of information, and would be better with more support from refs and fixing the style. _______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Emily Croft (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]