Jenna, I wasn't sure which section you were editing so I have tried to include feedback on everything in your sandbox. Sorry if I have overdone the peer review. The "As a Functional Aspect" section has a vague wordy title that does not really describe the information in the section. The first paragraph is also unnecessarily wordy; cutting some of the examples of stimuli at the end of the paragraph might be an easy way to condense. The second paragraph of the section is repetitive; this could be solved by eliminating the first or last sentence which are the most obviously repetitive. The third paragraph is excellent. Your adds were concise and referenced excellent sources. The "Digit-Span Tasks" section is excellently done. Good job eliminating the plagiarism from the original article. You made a good add to the first paragraph; it was concise and explanatory. Some of the examples may not be necessary though. The second paragraph has excellent condensing and adds of new information and sources. The "Intrinsic Factors" section is a good condensed section. Your sources are great. There is one sentence that needs a source; it is marked by the citation needed. You could look at the original article's sources and see if one contains the information (save blindly looking through articles). Another suggestion might be to link the word "intrinsic" to another article that explains in depth what an intrinsic factor is. The "Permanent pathological conditions" sub-section needs a citation to source the information and you may be able to combine the two sentences. I saw a note saying that you were going to add some intrinsic factors; I was unsure if you had already done that or were planning to. Either way, great job editing and the article just needs a little more trimming to make it concise enough for Wikipedia standards. Saholmes (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Sarah. I just figured that I'd reply to your review to clarify some things (but you don't have to change anything in your review). Basically, what I did in my sandbox was copy and paste a couple of sections from the original article and then edit/add to them from there, so the section headings and some of the text is not mine. As far as the first section (As a functional aspect), I agree, the heading title is weird. The first paragraph is not mine. Most of what I added for the draft from that section is the third paragraph, but I'll go back to the first and second paragraphs and see what I can do (I don't really know how much I'm supposed to edit them though since I didn't write anything from them). For the "Digit Span" section, I mostly rewrote (to avoid plagiarism). As far as the repetitive examples go in that section, which part are you referring to exactly? As far as the "Intrinsic Factors" section goes, I only added to the "Age" section, and I wasn't really sure if the "Permanent pathological conditions" section was even necessary. Do you think it's a significant enough contribution to be included? Also, for the citation needed in the "Age" section, I have no idea where they got that information from. Do you think that particular sentence is even necessary in the article (i.e. it could just be deleted)? As far as adding more intrinsic factors, one of my articles made some comments about things such as gender also affecting memory span, so I may go and add a small part about that. Thanks for the notes! Jenn.reed (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jenna, I don't think you have to do anything to the first and second paragraphs if you weren't planning to edit those; I was just unsure. The comment about examples was in the first sentence where it describes several everyday activities; it felt like more examples when combined with the next sentence that begins "for example". Maybe you could just be clear to separate the list of examples from the extended information. I agree that the "Permanent pathological conditions" are not necessary, it repeats common accepted knowledge on memory and age. The uncited sentence is not necessary; if you wanted to cite it, it may be implied in one of the studies you looked at. I think you could add things about gender but I think you have done plenty of editing. Great Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saholmes (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
