User talk:Ashar29/sandbox

I thought your article was really well researched and well written. You did a great job of simplifying down a complex topic and making it clear and easy to understand.The Research Paradigm section was really clear and detailed and you also included many tables and hyper-links, which was really helpful when reading the article. I felt that maybe the organization of the sections could possibly be altered. For example, I felt that the History section should be put before the Research Paradigms section or should be included within the Theory section, under a separate sub heading. This would just make the information flow a bit better and make it easier to grasp. I also thought in the introduction section, it may be better to define orthography first, then Priming before going onto say what orthographic priming is, just to make the article a bit simpler to follow. All the sections were very thorough and detailed, although I felt that some elaboration was needed in the additional inhibiting and facilitating factors section. It may be helpful to add in an examples from one or two more studies or if not break the studies already included down a bit more and elaborate upon them. Finally,although you have but a hyper-link to the page, it may be helpful to the reader, if you could add a sentence or two just briefly stating what the Interactive Activation Model is and it's relation to the neighbourhood frequency effect.

Reviewer #2 (Kms91)
Overall, this article was extremely well written! It was easy to read and explained the topic quite clearly.

Before even reading Review #1, I also felt that history could have proceeded the paradigm section, but the history section refers to the paradigms so you would have to do more than just cut/paste. Placing the paradigm section within Theory seems like reasonable alternative. Great idea, reviewer #1! Somewhat similarly, I believe that "Neurological Perspective and Future Research" and "Implications" could be combined.

I agree with Reviewer #1 that some readers will want more information than is presented and so I suggest the addition of a "Further reading" section (perhaps the 3 articles you cited more than once?) and/or a "External links" section.

= Strengths =
 * Your use of figures was extremely impressive! Figures aided topic comprehension and provided relief from what would have otherwise been a vast body of text (aided readability).
 * Figure placement (left, right, sizing, etc) created a very visually appealing page.
 * The captions were also very well done.
 * Hyperlinks were neither excessive nor lacking and aided with comprehension.
 * The article is well-sourced. You clearly researched this topic quite thoroughly.
 * The "See also" section has a very sensible list of related pages.
 * The writing style felt appropriate for a wiki article of this nature. Given the complexity of this topic, you did a wonderful job of simplifying the concepts, and generally avoided the use of "jargon" and overly complex wording.

= Suggestions = Your article was beautiful written so these are mostly just format ideas.
 * You can place the table of contents under the title and intro paragraph by placing the following code after the intro: {TOC left} {clear}, but using double braces instead of single. Example:


 * I recommend only bolding “Orthographic Priming” in the first sentence. This is simply because I’ve never seen another wiki article bold the entire first sentence.
 * Adding bold/italics to headings is a nice touch, but isn’t necessarily consistent with the general wiki format so I would advise leaving the headings as wiki creates them.
 * In “See also”, I recommend using the full terms rather than acronyms.
 * In the somewhat arbitrary formatting rules of Wiki, there are no capitals beyond the first letter in titles/headers (other than acronyms and individual’s names). To be consistent with this format, I recommend removing all but the first capitalization in your title and headers (for example, Orthographic Priming = Orthographic priming, Research Paradigms = Research paradigms).
 * Adding a caption under the "Masked Orthographic Priming Methods" table would be a nice touch. As it is, I found the table's meaning to be fairly clear, but you could very explicitly spell it out with a caption.
 * Near your reference marks ([1], [7], etc.), some periods are either not present or follow (rather than proceed) the reference. The general format is to have the reference mark follow the period so I suggest following that format if you intend to put the article online.
 * With the possible exceptions of "Jonathan Grainger" and "orthographic neighbourhood frequency effect", I recommend against using bold other than when initially writing your title, Orthographic priming(this is largely just personal opinion).

= Minor Changes = These are the ones we were instructed to make ourselves. You can also see them in View History.
 * Removed extra spaces before “See also”. I am not sure why/how that was there but I removed it with a {clear} script.
 * Renamed “See Also” to “See also”(wiki format).

Changes
Thanks for the tips for improving the article! I've taken most of your suggestions and altered my article accordingly. The one thing I decided not to change was moving the research paradigm section after the history section. I felt that the paradigm section was necessary for understanding many of the techniques described in the history section. I feel as though some background information about research techniques is necessary early on in the article in order for readers to understand the following sections. Because discussion about certain paradigms occurs repeatedly throughout the entire article, I felt it was necessary to describe them early on. Additionally, in response to reviewer 1, there is a paragraph describing what the interaction model is and its relation to the neighbourhood frequency effect in there as well as a link to its wikipedia page. You may have missed it, but its just a small paragraph near the end of that section. Thanks for all the suggestions, it was very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashar29 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)