User talk:Teahughes/sandbox

Excellent article! I was very impressed with the amount of figures you were able to provide, and the amount of hyperlinks included on your page. They really allow the reader to get a broad sense of the field by looking at the large database of information your page is connected to. Also, there was an excellent integration of your topic with the field of cognitive science. I do have a few suggestions, but feel it was a great article overall.

In first section, I would just quickly mention what it means to be a “cortical center” for hearing, as a younger or less psychologically educated reader may not understand what this technical term means. Or even just make the words “cortical center” link up to a Wikipedia page on the cerebral cortex (I know there is a link to the word “cortex” later on in the article but I think having the importance of a cortical center understood in the beginning description may also be important for the reader to get a basic understanding right from the start).

In the second “history” section, I suggest perhaps changing the hyperlink you have to the “cortex” page to instead be a hyperlink to the “cerebral cortex” page, since the basic cortex page is more a description of cortices in general in the English language, whereas the cerebral cortex page obviously focuses on the brain and is what you are referring to.

In the “structure and function” section when talking about the study done by reference #6: it says the larger volume on the right, the more temporal or time processing, and the larger volume on the right the more spatial related cortex activation. Were one of those supposed to say the larger the volume on the left? Also was this study done with an MRI or an fMRI?

Lastly, I am not sure if all of the references are in proper APA format, although I’m not too sure how strictly we are expected to adhere to this for the assignment since a tonne of Wikipedia articles out there don’t follow APA format. I also just made a few spelling/grammar corrections throughout.

Again, great article, I was very impressed!

Cheers, Leah

This article is very well written, good job! I found the amount of pictures (especially for a topic such as yours) to be very interesting and help engage the reader in the article. Furthermore, the citations, image referencing and references section are very well done; you have 22 references, significantly more than the minimum amount. Also, the amount of hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles was very effective at directing me to more appropriate information, when required.

Although, I found no significant problems with your paper, there are a few suggestions I have for improvement:


 * 1) Some section titles are bolded, whereas others are not.  This makes the table of contents appear in a non-uniform way.  I would suggest formatting your article so every section is uniform with the other. (eg. section 4 research is bolded whereas section 5 mental illness is not)
 * 2) The "Research" section's opening sentence is very brief. As well, the "Directions for Future Research" section is also very brief. Considering a topic such as this, that seems to have much potential for study, this section is very small.  I briefly skimmed over a few of your references and noticed that the articles themselves outline implications for future research at the end of their discussion portions.  This could be an easy fix in the last section of our assignment.
 * 3) The "See Also" section is interesting as it directs the readers attention to other relevant material. However, it feels as if this section was just tossed in. A bit more explanation or detail of how these topics relate to "Heschl's Gyrus" other than just hyperlinks would be more appropriate.

In regards to Leah's comments, I found them very constructive. Two things I would emphasize that she brought forward are for your references to be briefly edited to strictly follow APA format. Standard APA format requires the journal title of an article to be italicized, whereas yours are not (if you like you can refer to my article's references section for guidance). Furthermore, I also agree with her idea to change a few of your hyperlinks to more directly related cognitive science pages (eg. cortex hyperlink to 'cerebral cortex' hyperlink is more appropriate for this assignment.

Overall, great job! My above comments are merely minor suggestions for improvements. I found your paper itself and the content to be very thorough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spetrou3 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Marley Hughes
In response to my second critic, the alterations of bold and not bold were purposeful. The non-bolded headings represent sub-topics, both of which are under research. So research is bolded but there are two major areas of research that i thought should be broken up in order to better represent the issues, so that is why mental illness and acoustic processing are not bolded; they are subheadings. The research section is actually my most extensive section. As for directions for future research this section is only a summary of what other researchers have proposed, it is meant to probe further thinking and not to outline specifics for how a study should be conducted. Directions for future research is a brief section in all of the studies I found, therefore it is a brief section in the article. The 'see also' section is an area for those who are truly interested in the topic to find more information on areas similar to Heschl's gyrus, i thought it inappropriate to stray too much from the main topic in an encyclopedic article.

Thank you for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teahughes (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)