User talk:Gizmeister1/sandbox

Hi there, Are you able to please put your name on your profile in the APS system? I currently don't know who you are. If you're not comfortable with this, then can you please send me an email to let me know who this username belongs to? Thanks, Jeff

March 30th: Oops. This is Pswht. I mistakenly starting reviewing this page. Please ignore all the edits/undone stuff. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pswht (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you could have the first section as a lead section which would be the first thing you see when you open the page rather than the contents page being the first thing the reader seesDhastie (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When you write that Lakoff and Johnson’s idea that metaphors shape and are shaped by thoughts was widely influential in the field. Despite its popularity, the theory has also received its wide share of criticism from other researchers. It might be good to mention who these researchers are that criticize their theory or perhaps add a critics sectionDhastie (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Cognitive Neuroscience Research section maybe you could mention what effect this may have on the modularity of the brain debateDhastie (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In the first section it would be good if you could hyperlink figurative language, George Lakoff, and the author johnson if possible. Also I thought this part was a bit akward to read:The first stage involves the listener processing a statement that contains a metaphor literally. The second stage involves the listener recognizing that the metaphor is figurative and processing it as such. I understand what it means but maybe you could find a way to reword it if you want to.

When you write:Researchers have studied and mapped the neural systems underlying comprehension. It might be good to put a hyperlink to neuron or nueral system if you can find one, I looked and could not so perhaps a small explanation of what a neural system is would be better.

The section on the standard model is very good concise and easy to read and it flows logically into the next sub section on parralel hypothesis, in the context dependent section you may want to change your hyperlink from N400 which takes you to a page with several options to N400 (neuroscience) which goes right to that page. Overall the models section is done very well

In hemipshere section you may want to hyperlink neuropsychological

In neurosciences section possibly hyperlink neuroanatomical

Overall this is agreat article you have written I especially liked the future research section I think you have made some intelligent and interesting comments on the future direction of research in this area once again good work on this article and good luck on your examsDhastie (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)