Talk:Gain-field encoding

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

Currently Under Renovation

I am currently updating this page for an assignment at Georgia Tech. Please feel free to suggest further improvements while this article undergoes this process. Sdavis32(talk)

Peer Review-Anshul Das

1. Quality of Information: 1 -- The article, though interesting, lacks some depth. It's size, ~7,000 kB, indicates that there is still work to be done, so maybe not all the information is there yet. As for now, however, the article is only a shallow level analysis.

2. Article size: 0 -- Does not meet the 15,0000 kB requirement.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1 -- The majority are primary sources, and only is one more than the required 10.

5. Links: 1 -- There are some terms that could be internally referenced in Wikipedia such as "limb motion", "motor areas of the brain", etc.

6. Responsive to comments: 1 -- There has been minimal activity on this talk page and has not reached out to wiki editors on the article's talk page or user talk page

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

Total: 13 out of 20 Anshuldas (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

===

1. Quality of Information: 1 - What's there looks good, but more info is needed.

2. Article size: 0 - Not at the 15kB mark yet.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - Glad to see you're openness on the talk page. Make sure to respond if anyone does post.

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1 - Need to go above and beyond, not just meet the minimum requirements. Maybe pictures or more external links.

Total: 16 out of 20

Matthew Czerwonka (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 3

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

Under the 15 kB minimum

3. Readability: 1

Could define things like gain field and expand on sentences like:
- "The input from these neurons is taken multiplicatively"

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

A few errors/oddly worded parts

"individuals external environment"
- individual's
"The process of writing "
- might say encoding or something, maybe with a link
"This opposes the case of other parts of the PPC such as area 5a"
- wording is kind of weird here

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

Has potential but is unfinished. A picture or two might be helpful in understanding how nerve stimuli become models in the brain.

_______________

Total: 17 out of 20

TDavies3 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]