User talk:Sarabeth.sullivan
| This user is a student editor in Gallaudet_University/Educational_Neuroscience_Proseminar_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Sarabeth.sullivan, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
- The citations in the brackets within text's link seems to be not working as I tried to click on them and they just opened up to a new page of your sandbox. Perhaps you could look into that and see how you can connect the links to the citations properly.
- Your choice of reliable citations as listed are excellent, based on what I’ve seen so far.
- Your first two paragraphs have plentiful citations and references to research/experimental articles, which is great! It could be beneficial to add in a few citations for sources with biological explanations concerning the brain anatomy and neural activity with all the neurons firing. Perhaps a neurobiology textbook would be an asset.
- The third paragraph seems to be completely lacking in citations. I would suggest for you to double check your citations for this one and adding in references as necessary to make sure it’s on a par with the first two paragraphs.
- I am a bit concerned about the use of scientific wording and concepts in your article. Scientifically speaking, your article is pretty great and quite clear for those who are educated within this branch of subject. However, I’m not sure about those who are not as well-versed in this kind of scientific topic. Perhaps you could try to find a way to make the contents of your article a bit more accessible for the non-scientific folks so that they can clearly understand the important information you’re sharing with them. Remember that it’s important to make your article accessible for everyone as much as possible.
- After reading the whole section, I can see that your article on neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies had divided up into two separate branches: human studies and monkey studies. I would suggest to add an initial sentence/paragraph to your section to briefly explain about the difference between the human studies and monkey studies and the reason why we run studies on animals and how they contribute to the ever growing field of numerical cognition. This would help the readers to understand and appreciate the importance of these studies you’re presenting. Otherwise, your overall structure is good.
- Your formal language is consistently neutral throughout the article for most part. My one concern is when you back up some findings with other findings such as the following sentence (for example): “This supports the findings made by Neider in macaque monkeys and shows definitive evidence for an approximate number logarithmic scale.”— I am a bit concerned about the possibility of this kind of language to be persuasive with the use of words “supports” and “shows”, which indicates that you’re in strong belief with this view. Is there a possibility of any other views (opposing) on these findings that you’re presenting that might would challenge the view you’re setting forth for numerical cognition’s neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies? It’s important to take this possibility into consideration as you’re writing your article.
- You did a really awesome job on writing up a section on such a complex topic and making it simple and straightforward! I can’t wait to see the final product. :)
Kirsten.daley (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)