User talk:Nbc91/sandbox

Peer Review kyle.wg3139

Your article is comprehensive in that it covers many of the topics relevant to information-integration. However, it would be more accessible to readers unfamiliar with categorization learning if you expanded your lead section. Perhaps, provide an example of information-integration to make it easier to grasp the topic. Another possibility would be to organize the writing to set information-integration into the context of category learning. For example, information-integration is essentially part of a dichotomy, in that it is often contrasted with rule-based learning. You mention this differentiation in the COVIS section, but it may be easier to understand this if you mentioned it earlier in the text. A similar way to add to the accessibility is to briefly introduce decision bound theory, as it seems integral to your topic. Maybe a sentence or two would suffice, just to describe what the overarching theory offers to this topic.

In a similar fashion, you may want to provide brief explanations for certain relevant concepts. For instance, in the section about theories, you mention prototype and exemplar models. I think readers would benefit from a quick elaboration on what these are and how they can fit into the topic. Also, provide a link somewhere in that section to "Concept Learning" on Wikipedia because that offers a more exhaustive review of those ideas. Try to follow this type of set-up for other areas as well (e.g. regarding neurobiology).

Another quick suggestion is that you may want to avoid using technical statistical terms in the current research section. Readers unfamiliar with statistics may be confused by those concepts (e.g. ANOVA). This may drive their focus away from the article and possibly lead them towards other pages in an attempt to understand statistics. Of course, a knowledge of ANOVA is irrelevant to this article, so that sidetrack would be counterproductive for the reader. --- Peer Review:

-I definitely agree with everything that kyle.wg3139 wrote above and I couldn't have said it better myself.

-Your article is very well written and seems to have very useful information.

-Perhaps you would be interested in hyperlinking "cognitive science" and "Parkinson's disease" as they seem pretty important. As Kyle said, hyperlinking something like ANOVA does not help too much in understanding this article.

-You mention "MTL," but what does that mean exactly?

-You wrote "functional magnetic reasoning" but I think you meant to say "functional magnetic resonance imaging"

-You actually wrote beautifully but it almost seems as if it is written in an essay format. Maybe you can shorten some sentences and simplify them. Remember, the reader can be of any age.

-You have the title "The role of procedural memory in information-integration category learning" Not sure if there should be capital letters in there or if you just wanted all lower-case"

-In the sentence "Procedural memory is dependent on the basal ganglia (Wikipedia), and if this area of the brain is damaged, it would therefore make sense that learning in information-integration tasks would be affected" you have the word wikipedia in brackets. Not sure if that is supposed to be there so I just thought I would bring your attention to it.

-Perhaps you could add a few more sentences to your conclusion to wrap everything up nicely.

-Other than that I would say that you did a very good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarmed (talk • contribs) 05:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the insightful feedback. I definitely agree with you both on all of your points and made changes accordingly! your feedback was much appreciated cheers, Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbc91 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)