User talk:Kms91/sandbox

Enjoyed -	I really liked the layout. It was clean and easy to understand -	I liked how you used brackets to further explain a topic and linked the word with the Wikipedia article (e.g. “see haemodynamic response”) which also served as a reference -	Using point form and links helped me a lot in understanding the different forms of “classifier training” -	I found easy to read and the procedure steps that were stated with indentation -	I really enjoyed reading the future directions including the potential for this methodology to control robotic limbs although it would be nice to see a reference that expands on this

Possible improvements - I liked that there was a link to fMRI so I could understand it better but I think that it may be good to use the full name once (e.g. Functional magnetic resonance imaging) like you did with MVPA, ROI and RSA - I think the statement about MVPA increased popularity may need a reference as it could be seen as an opinion instead of fact - I found it hard to understand why the comparison with “single-voxel analysis” since it is not clear if there are other forms of analysis of fMRI other than those two - I found it hard to understand the specifics of some of the pictures so I think that a short explanation underneath them would have helped

=Christina Gregory= Things that I thought were good:
 * I feel like your article was laid out very well:
 * like how you started with procedures then moved onto applications and limitations for both MVPA and RSA
 * thought that introducing RSA at the end put a lot of emphasis on how it was newer and less researched
 * also really liked your "see also" section
 * really liked how you gave examples for things that you couldn't put links for (example: under the "applications" section)
 * used bullet points really effectively to organize information and make it easier to read/understand
 * thought that you took a very objective tone (always listed advantages/applications and disadvantages/limitations)
 * thought the process section was really well written and very clear
 * generally used simplistic language

Improvements I might suggest: (Cgregor5 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC))
 * there were some points that were a bit confusing:
 * using words like "iteration" are maybe a little too complex and could be changed for more simplistic terms
 * the RSA section particularly was a little confusing
 * may be some opportunities for you to create more links for easier understanding (examples: phylogenetics, algorithm, randomization, sensations and perceptions) - already checked for you :)
 * although I think that the pictures provide a good way of understanding what you are discussing in the RSA section, I think some more description (either in captions or by referencing to the pictures in the text) would help make them more effective (example: acknowledge the 2D vs 3D in the picture)
 * in a couple of the sections, the referencing wasn't exactly clear (examples: future directions, dendrograms, visual representations of data) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgregor5 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

=Changes Based On Reviews=

=Other Changes=