Talk:Volley theory

Improving
Hello, I will be editing this page within the next month to expand and develop the article to include more information and sources. Rachel Candace Law (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
1. Quality of Information: 2

This wikipedia article contains a lot of information and concisely described. It does incorporate the factual and encyclopedic information. But I recommend getting up-to date references. Most references are kind of old so try to find up-to-date articles.

2. Article size: 2

It has fulfilled the size limit.

3. Readability: 2

The article was easily readable and the information was clearly stated. Also, the pictures assisted understanding.

4. Refs: 1

The reference is all from old date. There is no recently published articles. Also, more secondary sources should be included in this wikipedia.

5. Links: 2

There are enough number of links to other wikipedia articles. And the links are distributed throughout the entire article.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

No comments so no revisions required.

7. Formatting: 2

The article was neatly organized with adequate proportion of text, pictures and references. It follows wikipedian style and is very easy to follow. The pictures assisted understanding of text.

8. Writing: 2 The sentence structure was appropriate and mostly had no grammar issues.

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

Used the real name.

10. Outstanding?: 1

This article is novel and outstanding. But I think the article should also include how this volley theory is used, tested, and applied these days.

Total: 18 out of 20

Doyeon Koo (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Most work on the topic was done quite a while ago, but I'll look for some newer sources and try to tie in some current work using the theory. Rachel Candace Law (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

The information was factual and concise.

2. Article size: 1

Though the article meets the size requirements, the author contributed a little less than the minimum amount for the assignment.

3. Readability: 2

This was very easy to read. The sections were neither too long or too short.

4. Refs: 1

Most of the references were very old. I don't know if you'll have time to change that, but it's something to consider.

5. Links: 2

The author included a lot of links to other wikipedia pages throughout the article.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

There are no comments to respond to yet.

7. Formatting: 2

This is very well organized into many small subtopics.

8. Writing: 2

This was very well written.

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

The author's real name was used.

10. Outstanding?: 2

I really liked the use of pictures in this article.

_______________

Total: 18 out of 20

Catherine Kwon (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll start looking for some more current articles on the topic. Rachel Candace Law (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

Very descriptive article, goes into good detail.

2. Article size: 2

Met the size requirement.

3. Readability: 2

Very short and concise sections to aid understanding of the topic.

4. Refs: 1

Try to find a couple of recent sources.

5. Links: 2

Sufficient Links included.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

Nothing to revise yet.

7. Formatting: 1

Text was formatted correctly, and organized very well. However the first image should perhaps be moved down as it distracts from the initial part of the article, including the title.

8. Writing: 2

Clean and correct writing style used throughout the article, making it easy to read.

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

Real name used.

10. Outstanding?: 2

The article is novel and outstanding. I learned a lot from reading this article.

Total: 18 out of 20

Akumar60 (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, along with looking for some newer sources I will adjust the location of that initial image. Rachel Candace Law (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect reference for original paper on the volley theory
In the first paragraph of the article, it says "The theory was proposed by Ernest Wever and Charles Bray in 1930...", and reference [1] is offered, which is points to a 1937 paper by Wever and Bray. The theory was propounded first, I believe, as stated in 1930, but the paper which should probably rather be referenced is Wever, E.G. and Bray, C.W. (1930) ‘The Nature of Acoustic Response: The Relation Between Sound Frequency and Frequency of Impulses in the Auditory Nerve’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, pp. 373–387. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075820. Mirgy (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)