User talk:Markhundley41/sandbox

Excellent additions so far, especially the resources. You can expand on the summary of some of the research to make it more clear, I think. For example, the sentence below is hard to understand. You may be trying to summarize too much research into one sentence. Try expanding this section into a few sentences. Also, you talk about research growing over 50 years. Perhaps you can describe some early research and then more modern research, and summarize the change (or the consistency, or whatever is most accurate). Psy430uk (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC) ''The research that has been done on psychoanalysis and delayed gratification has grown exponentially over the past 50 years. Research done by Funder and Block showed that ego control, ego resiliency, and IQ involve some correlation between delayed gratification and the workings of the ego.''

peyton presnell's peer review
Good start to your article mark. I would suggest a new lead sentence that more concretely defines what your talking about before jumping to another for it. Also in your research section a few examples of studies and summaries of them might clarify even more. The psychoanalysis section looks good and your writing style is clear and non-biased in the way wikipedia demands. If you make some additions in the same manner it should end up being a good addition to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peytonic1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Colón
I like how your page reads, it feels like a regular wikipedia entry which is good. I agree with some of the other reviewer's opinion that it might be good to add a sentence or two more to further explain the ideas behind the research and concepts, you summarize them very well but it might help a reader understand if there was a little bit more. Such as some major past studies to show how much the field has grown in the past few years — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinColón (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)