User talk:TheSilentSong/sandbox

I really enjoyed reading your article. I liked how you structured the paper and how you touched on different things that involve conceptual combination. It really gives the reader a nice overview of the topic, and it provides them with enough sources so that they can further investigate anything they were particularly interested on. There are a couple of things I want to suggest to improve the overall look of the article, but I really think you did a good job at explaining the paper in the simplest terms possible (given how technical a topic like this can get). First, I noticed that you don't have a small summary or "blurb" at the beginning of your article. A lot of wikipedia articles have a short description of their content right before the "contents" box, and i feel like it would be really useful if your paper had one. You could just move the "conceptual combination" section and make this your blurb. Second, when you are talking about the different theories, I feel like it would be helpful if you could incorporate at least one figure explaining how the theory works. Some people are visual learners and I feel like it would really help out when they are trying to follow the text that you included, and it could even help out eliminate some text. Another point in regards to the theories you are describing that I would like to suggest, is naming the main researchers that come up with the theory. I know sometimes it is hard to pin-point who was the "inventor" of a given theory, but if a key name is mentioned in many papers, you should include that in your paper. It is good to always give people credit for their work. One last suggestion I would like to make is in regards to hyperlinks. You were really good at the beginning using them, and I think throughout the paper you hyperlinked the main words, which is great. However, most of the times individuals will not read your entire article, but will instead jump to the section they are most interested in. You hyperlinked key terms at the beginning of the article, but almost none at the end, and I feel that it would be really good if you kept hyperlinking those same terms throughout the article, at least once in each section (I know this could be really tedious, but it might really help someone who is doing research for a paper)

Overall I really enjoyed your article, and I learned a lot of things from it, so great work :)

-Laura Garcia

Peer Review
I like how the article starts off by defining what Conceptual Combination is. It gives readers a chance to evaluate whether or not this specific topic is what they were searching for. In the constraint theory I like how each of the three constraints are italicized, it really helps to quickly find which constraint someone may specifically be looking for. "Diagnosticity refers to the possession of properties that define the a complex concept's component simple concepts. Because such properties are diagnostic of the component concepts, at least of of them should be diagnostic of high-order representations constructed from those concepts." - These sentences need to be edited. There are quite a few errors, doubling of words, misspelled words, the need of commas etc., correcting these errors by editing the paper will make your paper flow better and easier to read. Excellent transition sentence from spreading activation to feature-based theories. Overall, I think the paper was well organized and subheadings were used appropriately. You had a good amount of resources, however, you might consider using more than one source per paragraph. I think it would also be a good idea to expand on the educational applications because it is a real world application of Conceptual Combination. Once the paper is edited it will flow better and will be an easy read!

- Geraldine

Response from the Author
Thank you both for your compliments and criticisms.

I have fixed the wording in the constraint theory section. It is now syntactically correct and hopefully reads more fluidly. Minor corrections to spelling and wording throughout the article have been made as well. I have added some more hyperlinks, although I am hesitant to add more. This is because I do not want too many redundant links, although I agree that there should be at least one repeated hyperlink per "==" section. At other times, I am unable to add more useful hyperlinks because some of the words to which I would like to link do not yet have their own pages, especially when they are used in ways specific to cognitive science (ex. features).

I have also added new information in the language section under the subheading "social context." This provides a new angle on the topic and explores previously ignored aspects of the interpretation process by relating it to interpersonal interaction.

Issues with references have been fixed. Errors with the tags were resolved, allowing references that were previously not formatted with proper syntax to be visible in the reflist. I also corrected the APA style of the references.

The first section of the article is indeed the intended introductory blurb. It is currently within "=" tags because the title section of this page is filled by my sandbox's title, "User:TheSilentSong/sandbox." It will be placed above the table of contents when the article is moved from my sandbox to its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSilentSong (talk • contribs) 23:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)