User talk:Cedwgd1212/sandbox

The two introduction sentences are clear, concise, and accurate in defining both the topics at hand…however, I took LRC to be a pathology rather than a term describing the underdeveloped LRD, so this needs to be more clear in the introduction; that LRC is used to describe an underdeveloped brain (whether that be child or neurodevelopmental delay pathology), and LRD is used to describe a developed neurological process.

The introduction does not have a summary of all major points in the article. A comment on prevalence is stated, but is not a summary of what is talked about in the body of the prevalence section. Sex differences is not included in the introduction, although a major point of the prevalence section. Acquisition and comparison of spatial relations as well as role of distraction are also not mentioned in the introduction. Including summaries of these major points would clear up the confusion I mentioned above. This would allow you to keep the first two sentences which define LRC and LRD, since they are clear, concise, and accurate definitions.

Another point of confusion is talking about prevalence, as though it’s a pathology that a certain % of the population has. I think defining populations that are affected by LRC would help clarify the prevalence section. In the role of distraction section, you mentioned that some individuals regularly struggle with LRC (really LRD) than others… maybe when you define those populations who are bad at it (children + who else?) and then also populations who might be good at it (pilots, surgeons), and then that is where I would include after the role of distraction in making someone who is good, worse. This would help with organization, since the role of distraction seemed a bit random and isolated. The content seems good, just make it flow a little better by giving context for the role of distraction

There is a balanced and neutral tone to this article. I particularly think that including the limitations to prevalence studies was good to include so that readers understand the level of legitimacy of reported statistics. There were no terms like: all, none, good, bad. This language is appropriate for the Wikipedia audience, even the neuroscience paragraph, which could’ve easily become too technical.

Citations: hopefully you can fix the repeated ones! :/ and I noticed lots of research articles, make sure that the findings you’re presenting have been well established and not just one individual study’s findings because Wikipedia is supposed to be a wider-scope idea of the topic and not specific findings of nuances about the topic. It’s great that most sentences have 1+ citations, keep it up!

Your added section is comprehensive and is not a duplicate of other sections. Key gaps are filled, and it is relevant to relative direction! So good job. Hope these comments help you continue making this section better. 11m30m1994 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review From Rob Alder
Rachael

Introduction

Introductory sentences are clear and concise and communicates the topic In the first sentence say that Left/Right discrimination “is” and not “refers to” to have more of a directive and factual statement You could possibly link other topics in the introduction like “Drexel University” since John R. Clark doesn’t Currently have a Wikipedia page Good usage of sources Organization

Organization is for the most part clear and has relevant content Bergen Left-Right Discrimination is talked about in the middle of Prevalence and sex difference. BLRD seems very important to talk about and may need its own subheading if there is enough research to discuss it. At the very least you can link it as an unknown article to have future editors possibly add it as a Wikipedia page

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance are good and offer clear communication of contextual ideas that aren’t confusing to the reader. Despite not knowing about the topic, I can roughly communicate what Left Right Confusion/Discrimination is about Throughout the article there is some issues with citations. In the “acquisition and comparison of spatial relations” there is a sentence that starts with “One study found…” and then doesn’t cite the study. This is done similarly again in “role of distraction” where it is said “Studies have shown…” but only references one citation.

References

There is a wide net of references, which most are scientific journals. The only nonscientific journals referenced and the Washington Post and NBC news, which is used exclusively for background information. Good job!

Existing Article

Compared to the existing article “Relative Direction” almost 20 sources are added and 3 new sub headings are introduced. The information from the original article is expanded upon in a neutral and professional way.

In conclusion, the article is a great start to the addition of “Relative Direction”. Keep in mind when revising to continue to have that neutral and concise tone that reference accurate and reliable sources. Remember the biggest part of project 3 is that this is a Wikipedia article so it needs to be easy to read for everyone.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Thanks, Rob Alder — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALDER (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)