User talk:Dinos4lyfe/sandbox

Your article is well outlined and the addition of studies helps with understanding how the experiments were conducted, but I think that there can be a bit more on what the studies found and how it applies. The Explanation section does not go into details about the studies and how they apply, but it is very well explained in the Judging frequency and probability section.

I would also say to take a more neutral ground on your explanations. Avoid phrases such as "in other words". I do notice it is in previous versions of the page, but maybe this would be something else to clean up across the entire article? Also, Phrasing in your additions can be changed up too. I see lots of "another factor..." and "Results found/supported/showed". Mix these up with other transitions and possibly say things like, "the experimenters found/concluded" and "the data collected supported the hypothesis" etc.

At other points there is simple grammar that needs addressed. Lots of places need commas or are missing them, some sentences are just not clear. An example of this is in your additions to the Judging frequency and probability section. There are a number of places that grammar needs checked, more than I can point out, but the article just needs a thorough read through to catch those.

I see lots of long, sometimes rambling sentences. You are trying to explain things, but it can be better. "Jack is a well-known strong name and if the person recalls seeing a couple names like this on the list but other names that do not stand out for women like Deepika were the only names on the list for women, then the person will recall that there were more women" Break this up into 3 or 4 sentences. This is way too long and makes your point unclear.

Overall, you do well in explaining in some places, but you should be sure to consistently explain the meaning and applications of experiments and articles that you reference. Be sure to check grammar and to shorten run-on sentences, which would help with explanations greatly. Mix up some transitions and be sure to reflect why the experiments matter in findings about the availability heuristic. -- Englecp (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sean Pease review of Dinos4lyfe
The outline you have provided for your page on Availability Heuristic provides solid information and the inclusion of more studies adds to that ability of the article to convey its information. I assume when you have quotes from the studies that they are paraphrasing rather than straight from text citations, because the content seems like it has been adapted from its source. In the example you used from the paper by Tversky about the amount of words containing K, at the end of the first paragraph it does get somewhat repetitive and there are a few sentences that could be removed, just to make the point of the study more salient. There is a small typo in the first paragraph in the first line after seminal, I assume you meant to say "they" rather than "the." In the explanation of the research in the following paragraph there are a few typos in regards to "their" and "there." This paragraph could be cut down also to make it easier to follow. Such as outlining what the task was in a sentence then explaining what happened and how it relates to the heuristic then go to the next task. This would allow for a more direct approach and might help people understand what happened and why it matters more easily. The information all seems accurate from what I can recall about the availability heuristic and most of the added content is related to a previous statement in the article and adding to it with more research which works and significantly adds to the value of the piece. However I would recommend going back through and reorganizing some of the article summaries as they can be hard to follow, particularly the research by Vaugh. The final edit added a lot of good information and I liked how you tied it back to the Tversky research but when you talk about the two factors, discuss what they are immediately after and then dedicate separate paragraphs to them after so that people can get a sense about what you are trying to say and then can follow up. Peasesh (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

JohnFloyd review of Dinos4Lyfe
Thought the research examples you guys found were very supportive of your topic, however I think there could be a little tightening up of sentences to make them a little more clear and concise, but overall I thought it was very well done. Also thought it might be helpful proof-read out loud a couple of times to help listen to the flow of some of the paragraphs, since at times I thought sentence flow sounded a little off, but this could definitely just be me. Also I am not a grammar genius so I just thought I would bold the changes I did make and you could adjust as you please. Hope this helped.

Thought the research examples you guys found were very supportive of your topic, however I think there could be a little tightening up of sentences to make them a little more clear and concise, but overall I thought it was very well done. Also thought it might be helpful proof-read out loud a couple of times to help listen to the flow of some of the paragraphs, since at times I thought sentence flow sounded a little off, but this could definitely just be me. Also I am not a grammar genius so I just thought I would bold the changes I did make and you could adjust as you please. Hope this helped.

The following paragraph's only problems seemed to be some potential run-on sentences, and a couple issues of clarity, overall thought it was fairly clear and easy to read, in addition to make several interesting points from studies:

In Tversky and Kahneman’s seminal paper, they include '''findings from several other studies, which also show support for the availability heuristic. Apart from their findings from them groundbreaking "K" study, they also found''': When participants were shown two visual structures and asked to pick the structure that had more paths, participants saw more paths in the structure that had more obvious available paths. In the structure that participants chose, there were more columns and shorter obvious paths, making it more available to them. When participants were asked to complete tasks involving estimation, they would often underestimate the end result. Participants were basing their final estimation off of a quick first impression of the problem. Participants particularly struggled when the problems consisted of multiple steps due to the fact that since participants were basing their answers on an initial impression, they were unable to account for the high rate of growth in the later steps. This was shown again in a task that asked participants to estimate the answer to a multiplication task, in which the numbers were presented either as 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8 or 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1. The participants who were presented the equation with the larger numbers first, estimated significantly higher result than those with the lower numbers first. Since participants were supposed to respond in a timely manner, they were more likely to base their estimates off of what was available, which in this case was the first few numbers in the sequence. Participants also completed another path problem. Participants were often way off in their estimates of the numbers of pathways of different types. Participants judged frequency based on the how easy it was to create the path, and compared this frequency with the frequency of the different path types.

The following paragraph I found to be a little bit choppier when reading, definitely had to re-read multiple sentences in order to make sure I had understood what was being conveyed, :

Research by Vaugh (1999) looked at the effects of uncertainty on the use of the availability heuristic. College students were asked to list either three or eight study methods they could use in order to get an A on their final exams during the current semester. The researchers also manipulated the time when they would ask the students to complete the questionnaire. Approximately half of the participants were asked for this information during either the third week of classes or on last day of classes. In addition to the study methods question (not sure this part before the comma is needed), participants were also asked rate (removed the) how likely they would be to get an A in their easiest and hardest classes. Participants were then asked to rank the difficulty of recalling the examples they had previously listed. The researchers hypothesized that students would use the availability heuristic only when asked whether or not they would get an A on their most difficult class in the first three weeks of the semester (as opposed to when?) because participants would be more uncertain as to how the semester would go. The results found that students were more pessimistic about their likelihood of getting an A when they ranked recall as (most?) difficult and were asked about their hardest final exam at the beginning of the semester. (Last few lines are a little choppy). These results supported this hypothesis and gave evidence to the fact that levels of uncertainty affect the use of the availability heuristic (Last sentence isn’t incredibly necessary).

In the original Tversky and Kahneman (1973) research, two major factors that are discussed are the frequency of repetition, frequency of co-occurence, and illusory correlation. The use of frequency of repetition aids in the retrieval of relevant instances. The idea behind this phenomenon is that the more an instance is repeated within a category or list, the stronger the link between the two instances becomes. Individuals then use the strong association between the instances to determine the frequency of an instance. Consequently, the association between the category or list and the specific instance often influences frequency judgments. Frequency of co-occurrence strongly relates to frequency of repetition, such that the more frequent an item-pair is repeated, the stronger the association between the two items becomes, leading to a bias when estimating frequency of co-occurrence. Due to the phenomena of frequency of co-occurence, Illusory correlations also often play a big role. [7] A large (What is a large factor? Illusory correlations?) factor that comes into effect when dealing with the frequency of a certain variable is their consciousness. In other words, the assumption that a person will be biased that Californian ocean water is loaded with dolphins because every time they go to a beach in California they see a dolphin is not completely true. For example they may be less aware of the dolphin (even if they did see the dolphin) because something else had a larger impact on them at the time, like seeing sharks in the water. As a result the availability heuristic may come to them that the water is filled with more sharks rather than dolphins even though they see dolphins more often in reality. Each time they saw a shark in the water when they came to the beach they also saw dolphins but the dolphins did not make as big of an impact on the person. (The shark example is good, but I feel like the explanation could be more concise, there might be some potential phrases and fragments you want to remove or reword.) [25] Another factor that affects the availability heuristic in frequency and probability is exemplars. This means that if someone is asked what they thought different set sizes were (how many men and how many women are in the class) they would ( changed to would cause past tense of asked?, also a little confusing is there a way to maybe reword/reiterate so you don't have to include information in parentheses?) derive their answer on recall of certain names that stand out. Jack is a well-known strong name and if the person recalls seeing a couple names like this on the list but other names that do not stand out for women like Deepika were the only names on the list for women, then the person will recall that there were more women (This is also worded a little confusingly). The availability heuristic may come into play recalling names they saw most recently, but is also affected by the exemplar factor as well.

Waymond Wamano (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ALS Comments
I agree with your other reviewers that the added studies improve the depth of the article, and demonstrate an understanding of course material. However, i also agree that the writing presents significant barriers to understanding. As the other reviewers note, there are numerous typos throughout the page that need to be corrected, and many places where you have excessively long sentences that are hard to follow, or unclear antecedents (that is, saying "This" when it's no clear what "this" is referring to.) You also have several violations of neutral tone (e.g., calling a study "groundbreaking"). Focus on rewriting these sections in your next revision. Regretscholar (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)