Talk:Frontostriatal circuit

Neuroscience 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

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.

I, Trupesh Patel, will be working on expanding this stub until the end of December 2013 as part of my undergraduate class project for Neuroscience at Georgia Tech. Tpatel45 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 1

2. Article size: 0

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

8. Writing: 1

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

Total: 13 out of 20

Comments: The article size is too small and a lot more information needs to be added. The references sections needs to be updated as well. With a lot more detail, the article will be a informative read.

SindhujaPadmanabhan (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.Tpatel45 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)[edit]

Dershika Patel (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)== Wiki Article Peer Review for BMED 4752: Neurosceince ==[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 0

2. Article size:0 (The article was of inadequate length)

3. Readability: 1

4. Refs: 1 (only 5 citations existed on November 19)

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 1

7. Formatting:1

8. Writing: 1 (There are many incidences where words such as "the", "a", etc. are missing and makes it difficult to read)

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

10. Outstanding?:0 _______________ Total: 9 out of 20

Comments: This article does not meet most of the requirements that were stated by the rubric for the assignment. The article contains a very limited amount of information and requires more research to be performed to create an adequate article. It also appears to not have even a lengthier outline to help support the article. Dershika Patel (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.Tpatel45 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Article Critique (Applies to Last Version before November 19)[edit]

1. Quality of Information: 1

The article could definitely be more informative...There isn't much here, yet.

2. Article size: 0

Article is <1/3 the size it should have been.
Please expand, some of the information was there already, authored by others.

3. Readability: 1

It would be good to break up the longer sentences into multiple shorter sentences.

4. Refs: 1

Only 5 Citations out of 10.

5. Links: 2

You have links but you could link to frontal eye fields (FEF) too. Some may not know what FEF are. I know it exists because my topic is supplementary eye fields.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

Sure.

7. Formatting: 1

Could do with adding some pictures, maybe a brain image with frontostriatal circuit areas highlighted. (With some reference areas also labeled.)

8. Writing: 1

Same comment as what Dershika said.

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

I am not sure, but maybe you have edited this page without being logged in, before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaswatPanda (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10. Outstanding?:0

It can be outstanding if you add more media to the article and expand on the sections you have!

Total: 11 out of 20 Peer Reviewed by: Saswat SaswatPanda (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will keep that in mind. I have expanded some sections and added an image.Tpatel45 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

emotional labiality (typo in chapter "orbital frontal circuits")[edit]

Sorry for writing an extra chapter about a simple typing error - I think that the word "lability" is meant, but it could also be "liability", so I didn't correct it because I don't want to correct it by the wrong word... --79.243.228.202 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I corrected the word.--Tpatel45 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the sides of the brain[edit]

Excoriation disorder cites laterality in the neurological causes of the disorder. This aspect is not cited within this page. Anacforcelli (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]