User talk:Dhastie/sandbox
Great article! I particularly enjoyed the layout and the amount of pictures you incorporated into this article; it made for a better read and allowed me to navigate back and forth very easily. Furthermore, you have more than the minimum amount of references (16) and a fair amount of hyperlinks. When looking at your cited articles and content, you managed to effectively incorporate a wide array of research into a concise well-put article that is written for any audience to understand (students, professionals, layperson). I took the liberty of editing your introductory section. I noticed that your opening title was not a header but just a bolded string of words. I also, moved your table of contents back into that section via Wikipedia formatting which may be viewed when editing the article. This is also how I formatted my article.
I do not have any major suggestions for improvement as your work is very well-written and referenced. However, I do have some minor suggestions:
- Add a hyperlink for Irving Biederman as he has a Wikipedia page.
- Remove bolded words that are not links or need to be emphasized, such as the opening sentence in the first section. This makes for non-uniform formatting that confuses the reader. I also made the same mistake in my paper and intend to change it.
- Potentially make "Viewpoint Invariant Object Recognition" an acronym (VIOR) to make your article flow better. This will allow for a better read rather than having to jumble up paragraphs with those four big words over and over again.
- The opening section is slightly long and delves into both current research and implications for future research. Move this into subsequent sections and make the introductory section a brief overview, definition and explanation of your topics relation to cognitive science.
- Add more to the Pandemonium Model section and include a picture as this is a very interesting model that has a myriad of pictures available, all of which are very interesting (the model is based on 'demons')
- Make the future research section seem more directed. Right now it is just one paragraph with multiple ideas. Instead, separate it into different paragraphs or a bulleted/numbered list so the reader can look and immediately see right direction for future research.
Once again, these suggestions are merely minor improvements to a very well-written article. Your content is very thorough and your layout makes for a refreshing read, especially when compounded with your images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spetrou3 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I really enjoyed this article. It was well written and the layout was easy to follow. You also had a good number of sections and subsections which showed that you really investigated these topics and put the effort into it. However, there are a few aspects that you may want to adjust, if you see fit.
- I feel like the first paragraph may be too long. You may just want to put a short description in that opening paragraph and then, perhaps, maybe make another section in the article with the more expansive description.
- I'm not sure if I like the "..." in different areas of the article. I think that those sentences should be rewritten into normal sentences to make it flow a bit easier.
- The first paragraph contains the question, "How is this possible?". I feel that questions like these are more suitable to a research paper and maybe not as much in the general section of a Wikipedia article.
- In the subsection Feature Detection, you may want to use the singular "brain" in the last line: Our brains take these parts and put them together in order to recognize what we are looking at.
- The future research section references two different studies. Perhaps you should separate them into two paragraphs to make sure the reader realizes that there is more than one idea here.
I love the amount of quality images you have included in the article and I really like the tone of the article and the information provided. Feel free to use my suggestions as you see fit.