Talk:Dual-route hypothesis to reading aloud

The Dual-Route Hypothesis to Reading
I can't find anything for "The Dual-Route Hypothesis to Reading", do you guys mean "Dual-Route Hypothesis of Reading". There are 2 independent versions of the dual-route model, the "dual-route theory of reading aloud" and the "dual-route theory of reading comprehension." Is this an overview of both, one, or the other, or the dual-route model itself?Smallman12q (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
You can find the most updated version of this page as edited by me and takejriwal at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dual-Route_Hypothesis_to_Reading&oldid=546455561

Edienicol (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I have just found this article since you had not updated in which article you were working in the course page.

I feel the use of sources is very good: most of them are secondary reliable sources, and the use of primary ones is sensible. The article is also fairly well written. It is a bit of a pity that it is so very specific, since these articles usually end in dead corners of wikipedia without much traffic and nobody improves them. This is specially enhanced by the lack of articles linking to this one. At the moment no articles are actually linking this one, so traffic of readers can only come from google (and

Dual-Route Hypothesis to Reading is not something many people search for.

My main recommendation at this moment is that you try to increase the numbers of articles linking to this one (In a sensible way: the idea is not to do inside wiki spamming :-). In which articles does probably appear the text "dual-route hypothesis" in-text? In which others makes lots of sense to include this article in the see also section?

If you are not sure on how to do it you can say here possible related articles and we can take a look at them and how to do it.

--Garrondo (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I paste here some further comments on format that I made at the deep dyslexia article; in which some of your class-mates are working, and that also apply here (Examples are from their article, but as I say, similar mistakes appear also in your article).


 * Bolding: there is a specific style wikipedia guideline (See WP:MOS) which is overly specific and detailed and boring for recent editors. It has a section on bolding (See WP:MOSBOLD). In summary, bolding is only occassionally used in Wikipedia. All in-text bolding should be removed.


 * Capital letters: I do not think that the models are names by themselves. I do not think they merit the use of title case. In text I would change them to lower case (and unbolded as proposed above): e.g. I would change The Morton and Patterson (Dual Route) Model is based upon the to The Morton and Patterson (dual route) model is based upon the. Similarly titles should be changed to sentence case (e.g:Dual Route Model would be Dual route model).

--Garrondo (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also increase the number of technical or important (for the article) terms linked from this article. Examples: Reading (process), Learning to read,Lexicon, Pseudoword, attention, and many, many others. While overlinking can be occassionally a problem this article is just in the opposite side...

--Garrondo (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)