User:Alexyoung339/sandbox

2/17/19

I made several edits to the article on Chunking (psychology):

- capitalized heading 'Channel Capacity, "Magic Number Seven", Increase of Short-Term Memory'

- clarified first sentence under 'Chunking in motor learning', added citation

- added info pertaining to chunking experiment involving chess players under 'Chunking as the learning of long-term memory structures'

1/27/19

During this course, I will be editing two articles: one will be the article on Chunking (psychology), and the other will be the article on Mechanisms of schizophrenia. I chose these two articles in particular for a couple of reasons. First, they are both concepts that I find interesting; chunking is a classic example of higher order abstraction that distinguishes evolved primates from other forms of life. Many of the basic "planks" of our internal cognitive scaffolding consist of chunks that we have unconsciously formulated. The physical mechanisms of schizophrenia are still somewhat undefined, and understanding them can help us better understand the manifestations of the condition.Secondly, they are both topics of discussion in one of my 400-level psychology courses this semester; parsing and editing the their respective Wikipedia pages is one way to become very well-versed in these topics, and hopefully contribute to my success in the course! (VERY GOOD PLAN!)

The two articles have different needs in terms of editing. The Chunking article is sufficiently in-depth, but needs more precise citations. There is also a banner at the top of the article that says some of the sources are unclear due to a lack of inline citations. In editing this article, I plan on devoting most of my time to hunting down the listed references and ensuring that they correspond to the appropriate claims made in the article. On the other hand, the Mechanisms of schizophrenia article could use more information. In editing this article, I plan on searching UAB's library database for meta-analyses that can provide information that is suitable to be included on the page. YOU ARE MISSING ONE PART OF THIS EXERCISE, YOUR PROPOSED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE ARTICLES YOU HAVE SELECTED?

Chunking Sources

Thiessen, Erik D; Kronstein, Alexandra T; Hufnagle, Daniel G. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 139, Iss. 4,  (Jul 2013): 792-814.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 44, Iss. 6,  (Jun 2018): 871-884.

Mechanisms of Schizophrenia Sources

Gazzaniga, M. The Cognitive Neurosciences. 2009. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, p. 147, 571, 1156.

Chun, Charlotte A; Ciceron, Laurita; Kwapil, Thomas R. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 127, Iss. 8,  (Nov 2018): 789-806. For this assignment, I decided to evaluate the Wikipedia article on Megadiverse countries. (I AM CURIOUS WHAT INSPIRED YOU TO SELECT THIS TOPIC TO REVIEW?)

1) When I found this article, not every fact was appropriately sourced. The second paragraph of the introduction purports to define the term "megadiverse" and its relevant criteria, but does not feature a single citation. Five of the six cited sources appear reliable, but are somewhat dated; one website (which appears to be operated by the U.N. Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre) has not been updated in over four years. The link to the sixth source does not work.

2) All of the information contained in the article is relevant to the topic.

3) The tone of the article is neutral and factual throughout; there are no statements that appear to be intended to sway readers' opinions.

4) All of the accessible sources appear to be neutral as well. They are websites that are published by the governments of Australia and other conglomerations of countries that are considered megadiverse. (ARE GOVERNMENTAL WEBSITES UNIVERSALLY NEUTRAL IN YOUR VIEW?)

5) There are no over-represented or biased viewpoints in this article.

6) As mentioned previously, five of the six links to sources are functional. There doesn't appear to be any plagiarism or close paraphrasing within the article itself, although it does appear that one source (Australia's "State of the Environment Report, 2001") does borrow heavily from another source (the U.N. Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre website). (HOW DID YOU ASSESS PLAGIARISM POSSIBILITIES WITHIN THE WEBSITES THAT WORKED?)

7) As mentioned previously, some of the information could be considered dated. Also, there is definitely room for additions throughout the article; there is nothing about how the criteria for a megadiverse country were established, nor is there any information on the ongoing activities of the Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries.