User talk:Chatuka/sandbox

- Overall really good job!

- I liked the flow of the article and thought it advanced in a nice manner

- I thought the fact that you choose to bold some of the key words was really helpful

- You at first start out with bolding the key words however in the next section you italicize them. I would suggest perhaps keeping it as one or the other format for consistency.

- I thought the charts in your article were helpful and they helped me further understand the terms better

- I would suggest maybe bolding ‘Capacity Constrained Comprehension Theory’ under the heading ‘Working memory’ just so it is more clear what the paragraph

-In the last paragraph you mention ‘RH’ which I assume to mean right hemisphere… perhaps if you want to use the short hand, I would suggest referencing ‘RH’ to be right hemisphere earlier that section

- I also noticed that your references seemed to be cited twice, maybe make it so that it only appears once

Peer Review
Overall good job on the article! You had a difficult topic but presented it in a very thorough and summarized manner. Your article was short and to the point, which helped the reader get a solid, general understanding of bridging and elaborative inferences. Well done!

There were a few minor spelling mistakes and punctuation errors, which I corrected throughout the course of reading your article. I would also like to suggest the use of hyperlinks throughout your article-- I believe there are many words which you could hyperlink and which would greatly facilitate your reader's comprehension as well as enrich the article itself! (e.g., ERP) I would like to address each section separately so that you have a clear breakdown of my personal criticisms/praise.

Bridging and Elaborative References

This section was clear and concise-- you got right to the point and summarized the main topic nicely. That being said, I believe it would be helpful if you actually defined the term "inference". You seem to jump from presenting the topic very broadly to talking about the specific types of inferences but you do not at any point really address what an inference actually is. It may seem straightforward, but I do believe it would be helpful to conceptualize this term since it plays a very important role in your article and is being presented to a general audience.

Types of Inferences

Your explanation of the different types of inferences was nicely done. It was easy to read and comprehend. I would also like to commend you on your use of italics as they were very helpful in locating the words of interest. I am a little confused by what is explicitly stated in the text vs. what is exemplified in the table about predictive inferences. You say that they are involved in forecasting subsequent events (future) but in your table your example inference seems to be showing an inferential value but not necessarily a future predictive value. Perhaps make your example a little clearer or change your definition to account for what you wish your example to represent. I don't believe they are representative of the same thing at the moment. Also, I would recommend considering changing the last bullet point to a number (I DID edit this-- but feel free to change it back). It seems to flow more consistently.

Inference Theories

This section appears to me as a solid block of text-- I would recommend the use of bold or italic fonts as well as hyperlinks to break it down a little and call the readers attention to the important features. I would recommend that you explain the term "local connections" a little more since it is unclear what this means in the context of your topic. Your sentences in this section can be a little wordy/technical-- make sure you are explaining the underlying concepts. I don't really understand your sentence "In turn, inferences that result in local coherence are compulsory for adequate comprehension of text, and therefore, are spontaneously processed “on-line”." I would suggest rewording it to make a little clearer and defining what you mean by local coherence. The theories themselves are well presented.

Working Memory

Well done! I found this section to be very well written and the theories to be well explained. I would recommend bolding "Capacity Constrained Comprehension Theory" (this was also mentioned by the previous editor).

Development

Nice. It would be interesting to perhaps explore further into the idea of older children being better at using elaborative inferences than younger children. Is this linked to specific development of particular brain structures such as the frontal lobe? More synaptic connections? I don't know if this topic has been researched further-- but it would be interesting to perhaps see if there is any additional research on the subject.

Brain

Just a reminder that you are writing for a general audience. Make sure you explain terms such as "ERP", because these are unknown to the majority. I would recommend inserting a hyperlink here (see event-related potential). Also what does it mean to be weakly or strongly constrained by context? Could you develop this a little further? I changed RH to right hemisphere in the text seeing as you did not abbreviate this term elsewhere (also brought to attention by the first editor).

Implications

This table was fantastic! Such a great resource!! It was impeccably labeled, very clear and an excellent summary of research applications. Very visually pleasing and informative! Excellent. The only comment I have to make here is to ask whether there are any practical applications for SLI?

References

Make sure you are not adding links to articles because remember that the general public will not be able to access Western databases. Also, Jeff mentioned that there may be copyright infringement liabilities with linking articles so I would just recommend removing the links. Finally, your references appear to be repeating themselves.

All in all, congratulations on a job well done and good luck in the final stages of the assignment!!

Angelamarti (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)