Talk:Neuromechanics

Peer Review 1

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

You linked a few things more than once, including neuroscience, biomechanics, and somatic nervous system and it got pretty repetitive. I think there are also a lot of things that need to be hyperlinked that you missed, especially after the background section. Also, I don't think you are supposed to hyperlink titles of sections of your wiki article.

4. Refs: 1

I think you should cite things in your introductory paragraph, and also a lot of your references didn't have dates so I couldn't tell how recent they are.

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

No comments yet

7. Formatting: 1

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

I thought it was good but a lot of the information is probably available on other Wikipedia pages.

_______________

Total: 16 out of 20

I think you go a little too in detail about the electromyography section because that has an entire Wikipedia page to itself. Otherwise, I thought this article was very well written and the information was relevant to the topic. Kfagan6 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I have taken out some hyperlinks and added some in as well. If anyone else sees this, is there a way to EDIT a reference without completely redoing it? I believe some of my dates may have screwed up in transferring over which is why they are not appearing as frequently in the references section like Kiley mentioned. Thanks. Jenna Fair (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you find the first time you referenced a source, I think you can manually change each field. You should find where it lists the author, title, date, journal, etc (In later references of the same source, the code will just say 'ref name=(refname) /'). See if you can change it at the first in-text reference. Hope that helps!

Christian Erdman (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

1. Quality of Information: 1

Need newer information that's related to your topic. There is no reason to explain what neuroscience and biomechanics are. Maybe include background information about neuromechanics like why is it important, what type of problems are solved , why do people focus on neuromechanics? Things like that need to be in the background section.

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

I think it was very well thought out, but I have no idea why some of the pictures are there now so maybe explain them a little more. Explain the stance step graph for example.

4. Refs: 1

Your criticism section for muscle synergy needs to be referenced. I also think the into needs references too. I think the references should go outside of the period.

5. Links: 1

You should only link things one time in the article in my opinion. Also there are some red links that need to be changed.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

I think the pictures need to be described more. Why is the schematic for the brace needed? If a brace is different than an orthosis, I think you need to explain the difference.

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

The background section and the electromyography sections already have their own pages so it is redundant to repeat here in this wiki article. They could be used to go into detail about other aspects of neuromechanics.

_______________

Total: 14 out of 20

I saw that you fixed some of these in your update, but I graded the version from the 18th.

Jlukeedwards (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was under the impression from Dr. Potter that we were supposed to include red links that we thought were important for pages that need to be created, so that is why I have two or three. Jenna Fair (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

1. Quality of Information: 1

• Very relevant, accurate information
• Information is collected from numerous, current resources
• Most of the information presented in subsections are redundant of Wikipedia articles that already exist. This prior article was properly credited with the links to these articles, but the article needs more unique information to separate itself from being merely a review of other Wikipedia articles. In each subsection, I would try to make sure that every presented topic refers back to neuromechanics as a whole. You could also go on to include the purpose of neuromechanics and why it is useful to researchers, what it reveals, what it does not evaluate effectively, etc.

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

• Good use of links to other Wikipedia articles. There could be additional references to some of the instrumentation mentioned in the Electromyography section, but other than that most topics are very well referenced.

4. Refs: 1

• Good selection of books, secondary sources. These sources are also equally-represented in the content of the article.
• A few sections need references, namely the introduction, background information for Electromyography and the background information for inverted pendulum theory.

5. Links: 2

• Extensive, appropriate use of links to other Wikipedia pages

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1

• Try to elaborate a bit more on captions for the images you use. Also, it could be helpful if these images were centered with descriptions or placed in their appropriate sections. For instance, the stance-swing phase diagram appears as if it might be part of the Inverted Pendulum Theory section.

8. Writing: 2

• Writing style is very clear and detailed.

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

10. Outstanding?: 2

• With a bit more elaboration, the chosen images will be very effective in demonstrating neuromechanics principles.

_______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Christian Erdman (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments were super helpful in helping me understand what to do to fix the issues. Jenna Fair (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made several edits to this page in the past day to try to address the issues stated above. I've added some more resources where needed to support the claims I made, tried to relate the subsections back to neuromechanics as a whole, and tried to connect the images more to what I was saying. The comments from the peer reviews were helpful in doing so. Jenna Fair (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)