User talk:Spetrou3/sandbox

The lead section explains psychological inertia extremely clearly and defines key terms very nicely. The history section gives a great timeline of the research on psychological inertia. The links to other wikipedia articles for key terms is also very helpful. Providing an in-text wikipedia link for the term “inertia” may be beneficial. The real life examples you provided in the seven forms of psychological inertia really help the layperson understand how each type works. The information in the “current research” section is laid out well and is very organized, making it very comprehensible. All headings and subheadings are appropriate and the overall article is structured in a way that makes everything very understandable. There is not much I would change in regards to content, however perhaps you could add some pictures to make the article more visually appealing. For example, a picture that somehow displays “thinking outside the box” could be used. Additionally, if there is any information regarding what areas of the brain may be involved in psychological inertia and what types of people may be more prone to it, that may be useful to include. Overall a very well done and interesting article! -- The first 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. I agree with the other reviewer in a lot of ways. You explain psychological inertia in way that is simple and easy to understand. A few grammatical and spelling errors, but those were easy fixes. To make it easier for readers,, I suggest using bolded text to emphasize definitions (i.e. psychological inertia). You use bolded font on “directly taken” which I think is rather confusing since it is not a definition or something that could be linked to a separate page. I would have liked to see a numbered list or a table that allows readers to see exactly what the seven forms of psychological inertia are. That being said, the subtitles definitely help and I like how you did use them. What is TRIZ? If it is name, it might help readers to understand it by telling them that in the text. Though it is under “Other Applications” it should be included at the beginning when you first introduce it. With that being said, within the forms of inertia, it seems to me that you took it directly from the source. This is quite fine by me because you sourced it, but I think it would have helped to see you summarize the points in a way that a reader with absolutely no knowledge or background in psychology could understand. Even for me it is difficult to understand, but the examples used are a great way to imagine the concepts. The grammar and formatting of the text in this section is a little off, and it might have helped to go in and get rid of any extra spacing, grammatical errors etc. Though this is not your fault, it might have made things easier to understand. I like the breakdown of “current research” and “future research”. You do a great job highlighting the direction of research and implications for the future. I like that you used a chart but I think that you could have used it in a different part of the article where information would be easier to understand in a table. The information in this table could have been put into words as it was simple to understand on its own. Still, great use of lists in the current research section and great use of intext citations and links to other Wikipedia sources. However, I think you could have included a little bit more; I agree with the other reviewer, you could have linked “inertia’. Overall, well done. You understand the topic well and it shows through your article, however I think that it could have been written more towards the layperson, but it was still very well written and put together.

Knguyend (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review Changes:

I took the majority of suggested changes to heart as outlined by Jeff and my two peer reviewers. Below is a summary of a few changes I have done. This does not include everything I have changed, but it is indicative of the more significant improvements:


 * 1) Added a hyperlink for the term inertia and psychological. Also, added more hyperlinks throughout the article in general.
 * 2) Added a numbered list for the seven forms of psychological inertia before delving into their respective subsections. Furthermore, as Kim suggested, I added a brief summary of what TRIZ is early on in the article when it is first mentioned.
 * 3) Went through the examples for the seven forms of TRIZ and formatted them to be more reader friendly.
 * 4) Performed minor grammatical and formatting edits throughout the whole article.
 * 5) Combed through the whole article and made it more reader friendly to the layperson. Before it may have seemed too heavily psychology based and some readers with no background knowledge could have gotten lost (as suggested by Jeff).

I did not add a picture to this article as, in my opinion, it would not serve to improve the article. Instead, I believe it would take away from the information as this theory is not truly diagram friendly. It is possible I could have added a picture for what TRIZ is, but the focus of my article was psychological inertia, not TRIZ, as such I feel that this would have been beyond the scope of my assignment and led the article on a tangent away from the focus.

Furthermore, I do not agree with Kim's suggestion that my title go at the top of the page as it is clear that my title is at the top of the page. When referring to her article (as suggested) all her sections fall under one umbrella article title, thus making each of her actual titles a subsection of the article title (eg. article title > subtitle > subtitle [for each following section] as opposed to Article Title: section title > section title > section title). Also, my table of contents has been formatted to be included after the synopsis or overview of my topic; something which many other students neglected to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spetrou3 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)