User:Breaugha1

I am a senior at the University of Dayton, majoring in Pre-medicine and Psychology. I am editing psychology articles as part of a project for my History of Psychology class.

Brunye, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 877-895. doi:10.1002/acp.1396

Reed, S. K. (2010). Cognition: Theories and application (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Thomas, N. J.T., Mental imagery, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Comments on Dual-Coding Theory
I'm your peer review editor, just leaving some comments for you.

First, I noticed that the changes that you had in the draft sent to me by Dr. D, did not correlate with what is on the wikipedia article page. I'm not sure if you are just changing the way you want to do things, or if someone else has also been editing it. I looked at the history of the article and it seems like a few different people have edited it recently, but you were the last to edit it. Just wanted to bring that up before I give the rest of my comments. They may not be relavent if you are changing the way you want to do the article.

1. Introduction (Article) Seemed concise and to the point without being too wordy. If you are sticking with this intro, I would remove the word also from first sentence of the second paragraph. I don't think it is needed. Also, the second paragraph in the introduction could be worded better and the example should be different. The paragraph talks about the limitations of channels, but the 2nd example gives an situtatin were dual channels are helpful to one another. This example should be changed, or removed.

2. Introduction (Draft) Good introduction. Provides good examples as well as simple explanations.

3. Citations are consistant. Great Job.

4. None of your references from the draft are on the wikipedia article. May be due to you changing how you want the article done.

5. Red links should be removed. They do not go an article or outside website.

That's all I have for you. Happy Wikipediaing! Maryannb1001 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)