User:Mpsmith15/sandbox

"Article Evaluation (Psychic)"
Most everything in the article was related to the topic. However, for brief moments the article started talking about star wars, superheros, and pop culture references which made me click one of the hyperlinks and i ended up down a rabbit hole that had nothing to do with psychics anymore. This was the only time that i became distracted from the actual article and it was only because I saw the blue text and knew there were pages that i could read. The research that was the found in the article could have used updating. The newest research information that was available was from 2008, more than ten years ago. Newer more in depth studies could have greatly added to the article. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article does a fair job of remaining neutral. Until the end it simply presents the ideas and information. Then it says that it is clearly a pseudoscience and that there is no such thing as a real psychic. Although i agree with their statements I believe for Wikipedia it could have been done in a more neutral way. Also the viewpoint that psychics are real and have abilities is underrepresented. The citations worked well and linked to articles that seemed to be fairly neutral and had a expertise over the topic they were used for. One example is the national library of medicine and national health. I think there were a couple spots were links/references could have been added to increase credibility and show where the information that was being stated came from, since Wikipedia does not allow individual research or ideas to be presented. The Talk page was a battlegrounds of opinions. People were arguing about edit wars that were happening over word choice such as claimed abilities or simply abilities. There seemed to be a consensus that the article was slightly biased towards psychics being phony, and many changes had been proposed. (Not many had seen action) The article is part of the paranormal and skepticism wiki-projects. It differs from how we talked about it in class by providing a more neutral approach. In class is was talked about as a pseudoscience from the very beginning and not even thought of to be a possibility. Although biased towards this outlook it does show some ideas for the other way.
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Mpsmith15 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"Contributions to Chunking"
Overall the article can use some work. The entire article does not have a single in line citation for the research that it is taking about so we plan to find more research and data that can be used to add to the current findings to enhance them and provide citations to allow the findings to be understood better. Most of the article is also written in a tone that is not neutral like an encyclopedia should be. It is written more like a school paper and tells stories that are not prevalent to the information on chunking. The tone is also informal. We will try to eliminate the areas that are not necessary as well as change the tone to be more formal (this tone is very obvious in the first couple sentences of Chunking in Motor Learning). We also plan to add more information on using chunking to increase memory potential (this will mainly be on digit span and going form a small amount to vast quantities of numbers being able to bee remembered). The organization of the article can also be improved. There are several areas that could be combined and new areas that could be added. Mpsmith15 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Possible Sources"
Mpsmith15 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How Does Chunking Help Working Memory? by Mirko Thalmann
 * The Role of Chunking and Organization in The Process of Recall. by Neil Johnson
 * Post-iconic visual storage: Chunking in the reproduction of briefly displayed visual patterns. by DJ Bartram
 * What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. by Fabian Mathy
 * The Magical number Seven Plus or minus Two. by George Miller
 * 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.
 * The article also has a reference page that could be used to further enhance our understanding and knowledge.