User talk:Robinsr7070

Overall I think that this page was really well done. It is clear that the group put a fair amount of time into their research. There several improvements that I think could be made though. First, having the Cold Cognition section at the top of the page was confusing. I think the way the page was set up in the first draft was much easier to follow. If people search for hot cognition and are taken to a page with cold cognition as the header I think it will lead to confusion, especially because the hot cognition part is labelled as hot page. Secondly, I think that the section describing the hot and cold cognition tasks could be better worded, There were a few instances where I had to re-read a section because of the wording. Other than those two areas I think the information itself is very useful, and can be easily understood by people without psych backgrounds. Elena RK 03:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

-	I think that the edits you made to separate the hot and cold cognition pages makes more sense than the way the article was previously formatted. -	When talking about the hot tasks and cold tasks it may be helpful to cite a study that has used these tasks. -	Stick with saying hot or cold cognition as opposed to occasionally using “cool” instead of cold. -	Edit the assessment section, as it no longer contains cold tasks on the hot page. -	In the Delayed Gratification Section state which study you are talking about if you are talking about one in particular. -	I like that you went more in depth in the Delayed Gratification section. -	The last part of the Delayed Gratification paragraph seems jumbled. Either go into a new paragraph with other examples of delayed gratification or add those examples more fluidly. NV1908 (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)