Talk:Benton Visual Retention Test

Peer
Peer Review from fellow classmate 1. Quality of Information: 1 Get some more recent articles about the topic. 2. Article size: 0 ~8kB under minimum 3. Readability: 2 4. Refs: 1 Only 9 references 5. Links: 2 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting: 2 Formatting is nice and flows like a Wikipedia article. 8. Writing: 2 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1 Put your full real name on your user page 10. Outstanding?: 1 Doesn't particularity stand out. Article gives a nice overview of the topic, but it could use more depth. _______________ Total: 14 out of 20 Williamjhendry (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It's difficult to go in depth and find recent sources on this, as it is a fairly old test. I also put my full name on the user page. Sheng Jiang (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

-

1. Quality of Information: 1 - The writing was well done and it gave me good information on the test, but I felt the info was a little sparse. You definitely need to beef up your paragraphs and add a little more detail. A couple of newer sources that give you relevant uses for the test today may be helpful as well. 2. Article size: 1 - You only have around a 7500 KB article which is less than half the required length. 3. Readability: 2 - Easy to read. I liked the chart on the test format section. 4. Refs: 2 - 10 references are required, but you are close with 9. Try to pull some more information from a few more sources and you will be OK on this aspect of your Wikipedia article. 5. Links: 2 - Lots of links to other pages. 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting: 1 - No references listed on the opening paragraph. Did you know these facts on Benton Visual Retention Testing going in? If not, you need to cite all of the information that you are referencing! The rest of the paper is well written. It was easy for me to understand what happens in the testing process and what it is used for. Again, the paragraphs feel a little spare on info though. If you can add more detailed information or just more information, such as background and current uses it would help your article a lot. 8. Writing: 2 - Well written for everyone to understand. I did not see any grammar issues with this article. 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1 - I don’t see your name on your talk page? Just your user name. 10. Outstanding?: 1 - It’s a good article, but it doesn’t particularly stand out to me. _______________ Total:   	16 out of 20 HeatherAlysiaThompsonJenkins (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC) -

Thanks for the comments. As for references in the opening paragraph, Wikipedia says that "[t]he presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". I feel that the lead section repeats information in the body, and thus doesn't need citations, but I can add them in if you think they are necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjiang37 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review from fellow classmate 1. Quality of Information: 2 2. Article size: 0 You are only half way to the minimum number of bytes 3. Readability: 2 4. Refs: 1 need at least one more reference 5. Links: 1 needs more links 6. Responsive to comments: 2 7. Formatting: 2 8. Writing: 1 needs final proof read 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 10. Outstanding?: 1 Needs more content and more links _______________ Total: 14 out of 20 Kathleen Heller (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)