User talk:Knguyend/sandbox

Firstly, your opening paragraph is golden. You mention various brain areas as well as introduce a complex topic very effectively in a way that is very easy to understand while still maintaining flow. Very good style to your writing, and the figure you have added is also very effective.

In your second paragraph called “Development of the Visual Word Form Area”, you start talking about someone named Dejerine without first introducing them, or giving their full name. Could you more effectively introduce this person as well as include a hyperlink?

I feel as thought the heading titled “Genetic Involvement” could have been more descriptive, accurate and informative. If someone were scanning your wikipedia page for information, this heading would not provide an accurate representation of the content you describe in the subsequent paragraph.

Sometimes you write a substantial paragraph and only cite the information once. I think it might be beneficial to add in another referencing end note even if it is from the same source.

It might be effective to add in a figure to illustrate the results of split brain patients, as well as a figure of the brain so that the reader can visually represent where the fusiform face area is- this might aid in comprehension if they can situate the location of this brain region. There is also a substantial amount of research conducted on the fusiform face area, perhaps you can elaborate this section.

Furthermore, you only cite 9 references in your article, you might want to think about adding more.

-Andrew Nicholson Geneticsnicholson

peer review
Introduction to the topic is great. Easy to understand what it is the page is about. My only suggestion would be to explain what you mean by how it can be shaped by shot-term and long term knowledge.

Great visual for the Fusiform gyrus, you could even add to the caption "fusiform gyrus of the left inferior temporal lobe", just for more detail of the area

For the section "development of the visual word" maybe explain the role of the corpus callosum and how it connects the left and right hemisphere. It may not be common knowledge to people who are reading this that what is in the left visual field goes to the right hemisphere.

I also agree with the first commenter about your title "genetic involvement". Need to make it more clear that it is about the debate between neuronal recycling versus a localized innate area. Other than that the content in this section is great, very easy to read and understand.

In the empirical research section I would suggesting a link for modality/modularity or to give a little explanation to what it is. great examples of empirical research!

overall it is very well organized. Easy to read and follow because of the multiple headings. Also very neutral, showing both the evidence and the criticism.

Peer Reviewed by :Hayley Ewener 250535686 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpsych3139 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Act on peer review: - added more pictures - added a table - added further readings - added more hyperlinks i.e modularity - added details about Dejerine - changed title of "Genetic involvement" - added more in text citations - added more about corpus callosum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knguyend (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)