Talk:Equipotentiality
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Psychology expert[edit]
Hello. I noticed that this article was in need of a Psychology expert and I was curious to find out what the criteria for being an expert is. I have taken a couple classes on it and I really enjoy reading about anything psychology related. I like getting lost in psychology related research. I wanted to contribute, but I do not want to get in the way. Let me know if you would like a little extra help :) --tRekKerSandlia [Talk] 19:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi tRekKerSandlia! Yes, we can always need a little extra help. People like you and I make this encyclopedia. And as to your question, the tag is usually put there by an editor who feels that s/he doesn't know enough about the subject to be able to improve the article. If you know enough about Equipotentiality to contribute, and if you have good, secondary sources – and please also check WP:MEDRS – then please be bold and work on the article! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Psych class[edit]
We are part of a psych class helping to improve articles on Wikipedia. We added content related to equipotentiality as well as further defined and explained equipotentiality. We also moved the information already here into a subheading. The information under the two subheadings still need sources to confirm the information. Jesse.Kipp (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Steph Sorenson (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC) MaryG6279 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Current thought?[edit]
Might it be useful for someone who is knowledgeable about this topic to add a section on 'Current Thought', or the current state of or work on the theory? I see that the current section on neuropsychology somewhat begins to do so.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)