User talk:Cmccar4/sandbox

I like the amount of information presented in the article, it felt very thorough. I also that the "See Also" section was a good addition and a decent way to end the article.

In terms of critique I felt that your article could benefit from subheadings instead of being all headings. To do a subheading you put three = signs on each side of the title instead of two, === like this ===. I'm only telling you because we didn't cover that in class so I thought it could be helpful to know. I feel the History section could go earlier in the article, as I prefer when reading to get the History first (but this could just be a personal preference). I feel the Criticisms section could use some cleaning up because some of the paragraphs feel too short to have their own subheading in my opinion (e.g. the Rationalism section). Lastly the heading 'Proving the Theory' feels like it doesn't match the tone of a Wikipedia article. I'd recommend trying something like 'Nature/Nurture Debate' or 'Lack of Evidence'.Apeloza (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall I really enjoyed reading your article, and couldn't find any major changes that stood out. Specifically, I thought you did an excellent job linking to other wikipedia pages, and you only linked to pages that were key terms. Your references were well organized, and I liked that you included a "See Also" section with appropriate links to similar concepts. I thought the tone of your article was professional and unbiased, and the language you used was simple and clear. Your article was well organized, and I like that you broke it up into smaller sections that are easier to read.

I do have a few small suggestions that could enhance this article. It may be beneficial to add a picture, perhaps under the connectionist model section, to add some visuals. Similarly, I thought that perhaps adding a summary table of the main criticisms of the LAD at the beginning of the criticism section would be useful for readers to reference as they read the article. I also would be interested to know if there are any other applications of the LAD model, since the application section was quite short. If there aren't many applications, perhaps it might be a good idea to merge the applications section with the "New Directions" section to eliminate having an extra section. Overall, these are small changes and I thought you did a great job on your article!

Johnanstett (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

John Anstett