User talk:Alexyoung339/sandbox

Peer Review by cjboley
Be careful with using sources that are older than 5 years because the information may have changed with advanced research. The examples, images, and graphs used in this article really help explain the information that is presented. I also thought it was interesting to incorporate information on how it used today in "In popular Culture" section. I would add some information to how it is used in to examine a person's executive processing abilities and how it can help in the diagnosis and characterization of different psychiatric and neurological disorders. The information in the "Uses" section makes me think it's just a random test.Cjboley (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jherd
That's a good job so far, I think those grammatical changes might be beneficial to this article's credibility. I know as well as anyone how easy it is to overlook simple errors when dealing with high educational materials such as these. I thought it might help if you included some information about the two forms of chunking: the first deliberate, under strategic control, and goal-oriented and the second automatic, continuous, and linked to perceptual processes. Below I have included an article that distinguishes these two in great detail. As cjboley stated it is better to use more updated information, I couldn't find that much information but the article "What You See Is What You Remember: Visual Chunking by Temporal Integration Enhances Working Memory" (which i have also included below) seems to have more information on this topic in it's introduction.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julian_Pine/publication/11949618_Chunking_mechanisms_in_human_learning/links/59e3c9e5aca2724cbfe3b2d5/Chunking-mechanisms-in-human-learning.pdf https://elkanakyurek.com/wp-content/uploads/Akyurek_etal_2017_JoCN.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherd25 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jherd
While searching this topic i actually found a mechanism that was missing, i might have overlooked but i think this information could be help. What i found is Epigenetic mechanisms and I actually found from the first links provided below. Epidemiological research suggests that both an individual’s genes and the environment underlie the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. There is also a epigenetic of schizophrenia on wikipedia, I was thinking maybe you could leave a link for that page on the article if further information is needed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779706/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631256/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_schizophrenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherd25 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Esteban's peer review
Your topics of choice are very interesting, to say the least. You discuss that you have made some edits already such as, 'clarified first sentence under "chunking in motor learning," and added citation.' Were these edits made to the original article. If so, I am curious to know if you also added your references to the information you added. I think you have made a number of interesting points and comments in regards to the two articles. You appear to have an unbiased view, and have organized points. You discuss wanting to find additional references to add to the credibility of the article, I think this is a great idea!

I also like the fact that you mention the fact that you'd like to search for meta-analyses for the article "mechanisms of schizophrenia." You definitely appear to be on the right track, and have a clear plan to improve the two respective articles. I am sure fellow Wikipedians would appreciate your in-depth research, unbiased writing, and factual information. I agree that you should make sure to find unbiased, and recent sources if possible to ensure that the material is still in line with current research. This is definitely something I need to work on in my own article, particularly finding current and relevant sources to my article. Nice edits!Earnold97 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews
Thank you all for taking the time to review my articles! I hear and appreciate each of your critiques, and I especially appreciate Jherd for providing additional pertinent articles on each topic. I will definitely look into them to see if there's any overlap between sources that can be used to improve both articles. As far as using recent info, I realize that some of the sources I referenced are older than five years; however, in the case of the chess player experiment in the chunking article, I could not locate any other academic resources that address that specific experiment. Therefore, I feel that it serves as an adequate source given the existing literature on that topic.

Alexyoung339 (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)