Talk:Cognitive humor processing

I would appreciate any advice regarding this wiki article!Anshuldas (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

-

1. Quality of Information: 2

information seems to be up-to-date with what is available sources-wise

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs:1

a lot of journals and primary sources only - utilize the method of multiple citations per claim if using primary sources, or even better add more secondary and tertiary sources to improve references to wikipedia standards

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

no comments from wikipedians currently but posted willing to receive advice

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 2

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

nothing too outstanding - improve citations and an addition of something - like some kind of example even maybe? Or some pictures or something to really make this article stand out

_______________

Total:    18/20

-

Katie Cottrell (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Katie, thanks for your input. I took your advice and added a few pictures to make my article look more visually appealing. I also made sure to cite multiple primary references when possible. Anshuldas (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC) -

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1


 * It may be more helpful to the reader to have the pubmed id links in your sources. I also didn't see a year on many of the sources, so I couldn't tell if it was a recent article. Citing more sources within the article would also improve it (for example, the general section on old age and pathology doesn't have any references cited).

5. Links: 2


 * It may also be useful to go to pages on cognition, cognitive processing, humor, etc. and see if you can find a place there to add a link to your article and vice versa (maybe add a "see also" section at the end of your article).

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 1


 * Titles/headings should be in sentence case.

8. Writing: 1


 * Some wording fixes will help make the writing smoother. For example, in the section on "normal aging": "...but they are shown to select a lot fewer total selections. That is, when they chose a punchline, it was correct, but they chose a lot fewer..." Could take out a lot or use something like much fewer or less often selected the corrected punchline.


 * In mirth response: "Basically, if the cartoon is deemed "dumb" than they will not give a mirth response" it would be then instead of than.

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

10. Outstanding?: 1


 * I think its a really interesting topic, and making it a better page by adding the little things above would make it better.

_______________

Total:      16 out of 20

-

Emily Croft (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Emily, thanks for taking the time to review my article; it was very helpful. I took the time to go through and make sure I cited my article whenever possible. I also added the DOIs and pubmed ids for each article and also made sure to show the year the article was published (there was a small coding error when I cited my references, but they are fixed now). In addition, I added internal links to humor and cognition, but I did already have a link to "cognitive element" which directs the reader to these pages. I also changed the title and headers to sentence case, thanks for pointing that out. Finally, for the awkward sentence you pointed out in the old age section, I deleted it. I felt that the sentence was unnecessary. Anshuldas (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC) -

1. Quality of Information: 2

Everything is up to date

2. Article size: 2

Article is greater than 15KB

3. Readability: 1

Introduction should be a little easier to understand in my opinion. The first sentence might be confusing to other readers.

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

Good to see you're openness on the talk page.

7. Formatting: 1

Headers need to be in sentence format, i.e. first word capitalized and other lower case

8. Writing: 1

Concepts were clear, but wording sometimes seemed confusing.

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

10. Outstanding?: 1

Hit on every point, but still needs to go above and beyond!

_______________

Total: 16/20

Matthew Czerwonka (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Matt, I took your advice on clearing up my writing. On the intro paragraph, as well as throughout my article, I made some grammatical changes (both major and minor) to make it sound more clear and coherent. I also changed my headers to sentence format like you and Emily suggested. Anshuldas (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys! I have taken what you said and have tried my best to address them. Anshuldas (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Early Age
Looking at the Early Age paragraph, are there more studies that could be linked to show the early development among young children beyond Mirth Response test? It seems that those early years are so crucial to the rest of out lives. Jean Piaget and his work might add another level to that section. Great article, new to Wiki contribution, this is just something I found myself think of/wondering about while reading that section. Wikipedia contributors. (2019, September 6). Jean Piaget. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:28, September 8, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Piaget&oldid=914264357 MattMattPSY (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Expanding sections and adding sources
I think this article looks really good. It's well written and has good information. After looking through it I thought that if possible it would be cool if some of the sections could be expanded a bit with some new sources. Or even just adding some sources to sections where only one source is cited to try and take it to the next level.Manboban (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)