Talk:Gene therapy for epilepsy
 | 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. |
Untitled edit
This article's content was copied on Nov 11, 2013 from my page Therapy and its Application in Epilepsy and my original sandbox page stem cell and gene therapies for treating epilepsy to correct for the title changes. Since the transfer of information there have only been minor edits on the this wiki page.
Peer Reviews edit
1. Quality of Information: 2
The information included in this article is factual and covers current research regarding the topic.
2. Article size: 2
The article meets the size requirements.
3. Readability: 2
This article is easy to read.
4. Refs: 2
The author used more than the required number of references.
5. Links: 2
There are many links to other wikipedia pages throughout the article.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
The author was very responsive to edits and comments made by other users.
7. Formatting: 2
The article is well organized.
8. Writing: 2
This is well written and easy to understand.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
The author's username includes his real name.
10. Outstanding?: 1
This article is interesting, but could use visual aids or more creativity.
_______________
Total: 19 out of 20
Catherine Kwon (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total: 20 out of 20
Great article: Very recent sources, good organization. I recommend to read through it one more time for very small grammar/punctuation/capitalization issues. Also, think about adding a picture or two.
Rachel Candace Law (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________
Total: 20 out of 20
Great article. Very easy to follow. But what is CARNEY under the major challenges?