Talk:Retrieval-induced forgetting

Comment
This is an impressive article- kudos to Jethrobot for doing so much work on it! The only criticism I would make is that the language is at a very technical level throughout: fine for an academic audience, but needs simplifying for Wikipedia's general audience. Always consider whether a long word or a technical term is absolutely necessary. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I'd like to think it is at least marginally better than how it is discussed in academic journals, but I agree that it is still very technical. I can work on making it more accessible, but sometimes even longer words (but not necessarily technical term) are necessary to be precise.  I will probably tag the page for now given your opinion, and will work on fixing this over the next few weeks.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, however, the language in the lead is accessible to most readers. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "it is at least marginally better than how it is discussed in academic journals" - absolutely! "sometimes even longer words... are necessary to be precise"- agree as well. We should never sacrifice accuracy, and I leave up to you to make the judgement calls.
 * Re the lead, is the adjective "empirically" necessary in that context? "the plausibility of such an effect was previously alluded to" there must be a plainer way to say this. "inhibitory mechanism" - I know what this is but can we have a simpler phrase for newcomers. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Big improvement --MartinPoulter (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Martin, do you have any strong opinions on whether, in the paradigm section, whether item types should be designated as their abbreviations (Rp+/Rp-/NRp) or their long-form, descriptive names (practiced items / unpracticed, related items / unpracticed, unrelated items)? There are obvious disadvantages for both of these.  The first has the problem of coming off as jargon, which is what I am trying to fix with my edits recently.  However, the second has a comparable problem:  That such terms are long and convoluted, even if they are precise.  I've struggled with this in academic papers I've written, but the conflict is felt much more here on Wikipedia.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeking my opinion. I strongly favour the long-form descriptive names. If Rp+ and Rp- occurred a lot more frequently, then I would pause. However, the number of times they occur (especially in the paradigm section) is small enough that I don't think the extra length would be an annoyance. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)