Talk:Word superiority effect

Cleanup
This article has been cleaned up. --Anon.
 * It still makes very little sense. It relies on quite a lot of (un-linked) background knowledge, and reference to Figure 2 is unhelpful without such a figure. 131.111.200.200 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added/fixed lots of things (still largely incomplete, especially because of the one-sidedness of previous info). Not sure about my tone/whether it gets too detailed.  Triacontahedron (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

References incomplete
This document needs to have the references updated to match those in the reference list. --Andy 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While we are criticizing it... The intro mentions at least two references not given inline or in the references list as far as I could tell. The references themsleves also sorely need ISBN numbers. The two pictures appear to be scanned from a textbook or something- as such they are copyvios unless someone reveals their source and proffers a fair use justification. I think there were one or two other problem; I either fixed'em or left comments in the page source. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Authorship
This contribution was made by a group of students attending the Rochester Institute of Technology as a group project for Dr. Herbert's Cognitive Pyschology class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritcogpsych (talk • contribs)


 * For why I've blocked this group account, please see User talk:Ritcogpsych. --maru (talk) contribs 05:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement
Several suggestions for improvement include, but are not limited to, the lead section, overall structure, balance, and use of reliable sources. The lead section needs to be further summarized. It seems that it goes into a lot of detail about the research. Maybe the discussion of early research on WSE could become a section in and of itself. Regarding the layout of the article, I recommend reorganizing the sections. Start by defining WSE, and then talk about the hypotheses, then research, then models. Finally I recommend adding a section regarding the implications of WSE for cognitive psychology and how it relates to cognitive theories. As far as balance, it appears that more is said about the Interactive Activation Model compared to the Activation Verification model. The same can be said concerning the section on adverse word superiority effect. Finally, I did notice that there are sections throughout the article for which sources are not provided. More specifically, the “Hypotheses” section needs to include more sources. Otherwise it appears to be a product of the author’s opinion. JudithBrizuela 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudithBrizuela (talk • contribs)