Talk:Cognitive specialization

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Cognitive specialization appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that there are specialized mechanisms in the human brain for trust, language, and putting ourselves "in another person's shoes"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cognitive specialization.

Wikipedia

I think that this was a great article, but I'm curious to know if there is any history that can be found to understand cognitive specialization even more. In my opinion, this article is off to a great start, but it could use a little more context and examples such as social behavior. All in all, it looks good. Trentlaw107 (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old entries

Study findings have shown that a person's ability to observe one's own mental processes, as well as that of others, might be an evolutionary trait, not just a common social one.

Class review: I would have added to the end of your sentence because I am interested on what the studies had found("Humans might have evolved a cognitive specialization in theory of mind, forever altering their view of the social universe."). (Ahein21 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Class review: For an assignment to add one to two sentences, I think you did well. It would make me want to add to the article (time permitting) or independently research the topic, for my own amusement. As for the citation, I'm not sure what the "Wiki-norm" is, regarding exactly where the preferred location of the hyper-link goes, resulting in myself searching diligently for the next three seconds until I finally realized, the series of numbers at the end of the citation was my money spot! :-) Personally, the first place I would look for a link (in a citation) would be the title in quotation marks (I will add the link for you). Well done....Bowlamat (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class review' I think you did a great job adding new information to the article.BwookeGlass (talk) --BwookeGlass 01:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently expanding this article: I'm working on expanding the article from a stub to a full article for a class assignment. The full article should be posted within a few weeks of today. Mbhargis (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wrote this page a few weeks ago, and I'm happy to discuss edits or points of interest. I want the Cognitive specialization page to be as good as it can be! Mbhargis (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This is not a B-class article, and editors doing major work on the article should not assess them. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Quality_scale) Please review WP:MSH (the section headings are full of uppercase and are non-conforming in other ways, like words duplicated from the title and higher levels). The WP:LEAD does not summarize the article. There is text that belongs in other articles, not here, like Theory of mind, and there is an absence of wikilinking to those articles, where the text belongs. There is unattributed text (e.g.; "though some have argued" ... who is some), there are WP:LAYOUT issues, and there are citation cleanup needs, including missing PMIDs. Because of the emphasis on Theory of mind and Baron-Cohen work, it is unlikely that adding PMIDs will reveal that WP:MEDRS was correctly applied to biomedical content. I have reassessed to C-class, and cleanup to conform with WP:MOS is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to assessment

Thanks, SandyGeorgia! I'm currently working on the modifications that you suggested. I really appreciate your feedback! Mbhargis (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I will watchlist then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]