User talk:Apeloza/sandbox

I thought your article was really well written and easy to follow and understand.You gave examples to back up and illustrate the points you were making, which was really helpful.I liked the table you put in and the introduction section was very clear and concise.In terms of improvement, it may be helpful to add in some commas, or shorten some of the sentences down as sometimes they seemed a bit too long,for example, in the introduction and interaction sections. I also found the first paragraph of the Other Languages section, a little hard to follow, perhaps because it is a complex topic.It may be helpful to simplify this down into more basic language if you can.The present and future research section was really good, although I felt it may be helpful to separate it into subsections with neuroscience being a subsection of present and future research as a whole, as it seems quite an important domain for future research. As a very minor issue, there were two sentences that I felt needed very minor alterations, in order to make the text flow better: the first is the line that begins with "There is some disagreement that". I think this would read better if it said "There is some disagreement as to whether" and in the first line of the controversy section, the word "which" is repeated twice in one sentence, it may be better to change the second which to "that". The final thing that I think would really help the readers understanding of the topic,is the inclusion of more hyper-links to other Wikipedia pages, so that the readers can look up complex terms they may struggle to understand.

I like how your article makes lots of connections. By discussing your topic's practical applications and interactions with other factors, you added more dimensions to the information and generated a sizeable amount of content. Plus, discussing the current debates in research helped your article be modern and up-to-date. Backing all of this up with several empirical studies solidified these advantages.

That said, I feel like your article would benefit greatly if you spend more time defining the concepts you talk about. I'd especially recommend this early on in the introduction and the "Dual-Route Cascade Model and Parallel Distributed Processing Model" section, when you are defining exactly what "consistency" means (i.e., consistent relationships between pronunciation and spelling). While you have a lot of content, more of it needs to be focused on detailing the main models and explaining the basic concepts. Establishing a stronger conceptual foundation will make it easier for your readers to understand the mentioned experiments in context. Additionally, technical terms such as "grapheme-to-phoneme rules" or "feedforward inconsistent" will not be understood by a reader without a background in cognitive science. You therefore have to overtly describe their meaning in the article or, as the other editor mentioned, hyperlink them to other Wikipedia articles that do.

On a related note, take the time to specify exactly what you mean. Sentences such as "The study goes on to note that these particular results are not interpretable by either the Dual-Route Cascade Model or the Parallel Distributed Processing Model" are good for introducing new information, but leave me wanting more details. Being more specific will allows readers to understand the logic behind conclusions like this.

Your writing style is generally simple and clear, which is refreshing considering the number of Wikipedia articles that are full of jargon. However, I think the phrasing you use is more reminiscent of a personal essay. Try to adopt a drier, more formal tone. Cut down on referring directly to earlier or later parts of the article unless they are critical to understanding what is currently being discussed. When you elaborate on lots of related information, take the time to write each fact out separately rather than cram lots of content in one sentence. Try not to resort to dashes and colons to extend your sentences, as this is associated with more informal work. Parentheses are okay. Just make sure you do not use them to define complicated concepts. If it takes more than a couple of words to describe, it is better to just start a new sentence. If you refer to an experiment, it is not necessary to write "an experiment was conducted." If you want to speak of an individual study's results, just state the study authors,method, results, and conclusions. If you want to speak about general phenomena, just describe the overall observations. With regards to your content, try to write in terms of general themes, rather than enumerating the details of each reference one by one.

The organization of subheadings could be improved by eliminating or combining redundant subheadings, like turning the subheadings in "Interactions" to "Interaction with Frequency." This would result in more descriptive titles. You can also subdivide sections with multiple main ideas within them, such as the one on DRC and PDP models.

Finally, there's some nitpicky things I want to suggest. First, choose either "spelling to sound" or "spelling-to-sound" and spell it the same way throughout the article. I'd choose the latter, but do whatever your references did. I know it's really anal of me to bring it up, but since it is the title of the page it is noticeable. Second, when you mention something learned from class, try to give it a reference it anyways, even if you cite is as a lecture by Ken. People outside the class will otherwise not know where you got the information, and it may appear unsubstantiated. Third, increase the font size of the article title so that it is clearer that it encompasses the other subheadings. Fourth, you don't need to write out "example" or "etcetera" when you provide examples in parentheses. The abbreviation "(ex.)" will do, and looks more standard.

-Justin Toh — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilentSong (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)