User talk:FuturePerspective/sandbox

Peer Review: GregEdelsward

This review was very well done in the sense that it not only covered the many theories Linda B. Smith was involved in, but also reflected a biography. Information presented at the start was well formatted and didn’t go to in-depth, which I liked. An article that goes too in depth as a biography can take away from the theories later presented. I thought sticking to direct information of her life while including some additional influences, such as professor Deborah Kemler and there project together leading to Smith becoming a developmental psychologist, really gives readers a good background on the psychologist. I found the work done by Smith to be very interesting. How children naturally relate objects by perceived overall similarities along a single dimension. In saying that I feel the paragraph has some areas that could be more clear in how it’s written. Additional words links could be put in to give the reader a better understanding of the material. I do like how after explaining a conclusion to a study it is immediately followed by a study done by Smith to give evidence to that conclusion found. I noticed a few times those words remained italicized throughout the article, such as Dynamic Systems. This is not necessary, only on the first exposure of the word is italics needed. For the rest of the article the word can remain without it. Putting a link on a known paper written by Smith, such as “A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action, is good but not always necessary. A simple reference to a link bellow would suffice. This does allow the reader the ability to research that area more, immediately if they choose. I would have put more information in the current research section. Some studies referenced were made up only of a few lines. It is hard to summarize a study in a couple of sentences. I’d really look to expand those a bit. Include the parameters of the study, participants, materials, time frames, in addition to final conclusions and results. The awards section is well done. This shows the writer goes above and beyond what is required and give additional information on the person. Overall the article is well done. I would like to see a more clear writing format and more information in certain areas but overall they displayed the psychologist very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregEdelsward (talk • contribs) 20:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review: Eyelet16 This article was well written. It was straight to the point and generally easy to read. There were a few spelling (or typos) and grammar mistakes that I noticed and fixed. I found the biography and education section a bit confusing as the biography section mostly talked about education which directly followed making it a bit redundant. When explaining the Shape Bias and Dynamics Systems Theory, it was generally understandable but I would have liked to see a bit more writing on it to make things a bit more clear for readers who don't have a background in these areas. There was a great use of tables and diagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyelet16 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you GregEdelsward and Eyelet16 for the feedback. It led me to make some useful changes. However,when it came to expanding on Smith's research I found it hard to do as her research tends to be very complex (mathematical models go beyond my current skill level) and it would require a whole entry to actually give an in-depth understanding of her work. I also believe that an encyclopaedic article gives a broad but superficial idea about someone's work and life. Having said that, I did expand on Smith's work which is recognized by the academic community as significant contributions to the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePerspective (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)