User talk:Lminnes/sandbox

The first thing that caught my attention was the picture. I hate when Wikipedia pages do not have pictures, especially when it is an article about a specific person. Thank you for that! Another thing I noticed was that your main title does not go at the top of the page. I had trouble figuring this out as well and had to ask someone how to get my title above my context box, and if you need help with that then I suggest going into my sandbox and coping the code from there. There are some concepts included in your article that I think could be linked to another wikipedia page (i.e. cognition); including more of these could never harm your article. I thoroughly enjoyed that right in the summary of David Rumelhart you summarized his prominent work and what area of his research has made it so renowned. I also liked that you broke down "career" and "personal life", and under "career" you talked about relevant history in Rumelhart's career, not just everything that you found on the internet. Great use of intext citations and footnotes, and I really liked that you included a brief definition of what Pick's disease is, as well as a hyperlink. In your section for "Research and Theory" the subtitles make it very easy to understand the specific concepts but I think that you could have included more links to other sources, in case the reader wanted to get more information on that specific topic. I like that you used a list to describe the major properties of the parallel distribution model, making it visually more comprehensible. You included a section on a prize that was honoured in his name, and I really like that you added information on what he left behind when he passed. I would have liked to see you included that in the initial summary of Rumelhart, but you included it in the "personal life" subsection which is still okay, but would have made more sense right away. When I look up a person on Wikipedia, the first things I wanted to know are: "who are they, are they still alive, what are they famous for". You have done a great job overall answering these questions. I would have liked to see you use pictures when describing key concepts (i.e. back-propagation) to make understanding a little bit easier for those with no psychological background. I am glad you included criticisms of his work and future implications, as these are key to understand where his work is today and how it relates to what we know about cognitive science now. Generally, this article was very well organized and very well written and was a pleasure to review.

Knguyend (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph/ introduction could be re-worded to sound a little nicer. I feel as though the introduction sets the stage for the entire article, so it is worth putting in the extra effort to make it flow. However the hyperlinks inserted into the first paragraph are good.

The outline of the bibliography is really good. However in the first paragraph, the sentence “Afterwards, he became a faculty member at the University of California, San Diego for 20 years.” sounds awkward, and could be re-worded.

The spacing between your referencing end notes and the start of a new sentence is not consistent. Make sure there is a space between the endnote and the start of the next sentence.

It might be beneficial to add a figure into your article in regards to the “Interactive Activation Model”. Could also potentially add one to illustrate backpropagation.

The first sentence in the “back-propagation learning algorithm” paragraph could flow a little better.

Could also potentially add a chart in at the end of your article so summarize Rumelhart’s research theories. I feel as though this would really benefit your article because you mention so many theories.

Overall good article with a lot of good information. Also written in a way that would be easy for the general public to understand!

-Andrew Nicholson User:Geneticsnicholson

Thank you both for your input! I went through my article and re-worded certain paragraphs and sections in order to make it sound nicer. I also added more hyperlinks to better link to other pages. I fixed the spaces between my referencing and end notes in order for it to be consistent throughout my article. I did not change the placement of The Rumelhart Award, because I wanted to make a lasting impression on the significant contributions he has made in the field of cognitive science. I also noticed that in most Wikipedia pages, notable mentions such as those, are usually placed at the end. Also, I did not change the sentence "Afterwards, he became a faculty member at the University of California, San Diego for 20 years", because although it sounds awkward, that is what the university is called and that is how it is grammatically worded. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminnes (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)