Talk:Cold cognition

Peer Review from Bradley Annas:

First, I thought it was important and great for you guys to separate hot and cold cognition into individual sections. It made the page much more clear and easier to comprehend both concepts. A suggestion I have is going back through and making sure you guys have fully separated the pages to make the page flow smoothly. An example is the three sentences under the "Cool Assessment" section are also present word for word under the "Hot Assessment" section. My suggestion would be to delete these sentences from the "Hot Assessment" section to avoid repetition. Another example would be the first paragraph under the "Hot Page" section title. This paragraph seems to briefly explain the relationship between hot and cold cognition and give a brief introduction to the two concepts together. My organizational suggestion would be to begin the page with this paragraph, serving as an small introduction to the two concepts together, before separately discussing the throughout the page. Then have that second paragraph in the section currently, serve as the first and only paragraph directly under the "Hot Page" section title, since it is directly defining and explaining hot cognition only.

There were some formatting points I noticed. Under the "Hot Assessment" section, it appears you attempted to start a new section about the Iowa Gambling Task, but the change was not completed and it appears as ===Iowa Gambling Task===: in the middle of the paragraph. It may help to review the training guide to see how to get that done. Another one I noticed was under the current "Delay of Gratification" section, the second to last sentence. It looks like you were attempting to cite a reference after that sentence, but it was not done properly and shows as almost three full lines of the citation information. Everywhere else the citations are done fine so it must be a minor mistake that caused that to happen.

Another organizational observation I made pertains to the "Delay of Gratification" section. When reviewing the difference between revisions, it looks like you guys added information to a "Recent Evidence" section, but due to a formatting error, there is no "Recent Evidence" section in the Sandbox and all of the information is in the "Delay of Gratification" section. From what I could gather when comparing the revisions and information, it looks as if the first three sentences in the "Delay of Gratification" section were the only sentences pertaining to that section, and the rest was for the "Recent Evidence" section. My suggestion is to go back and find out where the formatting error is that caused the "Recent Evidence" section title to not appear, and separate the information/sections accordingly. I am not sure if this could be due to the same formatting error, but in your most recent revision, there is a section titled "Neutral Versus Negative Syllogisms Tasks" that appears in between the "Delay of Gratification" and "Recent History" section, but is not in the actual Sandbox itself. The information was not on the original Wikipedia page, so it appears to be new information you guys wanted to add, but for some reason that "Neutral Versus Negative Syllogisms Tasks" is also not in the Sandbox.

Overall, the information on the page is clear and concise, with unbiased tones and also accurate to my understanding. When explaining the tasks and certain studies, I thought you did a great job of keeping the description succinct. Coming in, I did not know much about hot and cold cognition, but reading through the page, I now have a much more clearly and deep understanding. The idea of separating the hot and cold cognition concepts on the page was brilliant in opinion, and really opened the door for the page to clearly and simply explain the concepts. My suggestion would be going back and figuring out exactly how to properly make the formatting and organizational changes in order to get all of the information you want to present on the page. Once the "Recent Evidence" and "Neutral Versus Negative Syllogisms Tasks" sections issue is solved and the other formatting/organizational suggestions I made are considered, I think your page will be absolutely great!Brad Annas BradA123 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review from Daniel Haskett:

Hasketdj (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)hasketdj Daniel Haskett

I liked that you added hot cognition to cold cognition and that the two were separated. However, to remain consistent the two pages should have the same title: hot cognition instead of hot page because the first section is cold cognition not cold page. Changing the name is unnecessary and takes away from the strength of the two separate parts of cognition (hot and cold). Although it is not a necessity, having the sources in numerical order is much more visually appealing.

In the part where you talk about active goal pursuit, it is not clear whether you are talking about it applying to working memory, cognitive flexibility and reasoning or just reasoning. I would re-word the sentence to make one of the two scenarios more clear. There is no reason to say cool instead of cold because hot is consistent throughout the article. In the second paragraph of the hot cognition section it would be beneficial to find another way to say "simply put" to avoid repetition that takes away from the professional writing of the article. In the hot cognition section in the second paragraph the word proposed doesn't seem to fit. An alternative might be the word 'said' but there are other possibilities as well.

Another way to aid the hot cognition section is to start the second paragraph introducing Robert P. Abelson instead of cramming him at the end. It is possible to state when he proposed hot cognition as well as mentioning the years it became possible all in one sentence and brevity would be beneficial to the section.

Overall the hot cognition section is done well, though it doesn't quite flow with the rest of the page. Maybe the rest of the page should be updated to be at the same quality as the hot cognition section or it could be simplified a little to flow with the rest of the article.

Feedback from ALS

The improvement to this page is excellent-- you've added a lot of meaningful information, and the reorganization really improves the clarity. You do a nice job keeping the writing clear and concise.

In the Cold Cognition page, it seems a little off to define something as "essentially..." -- this should be the most precise statement of the page. I'd also encourage you to consider how to define it in a positive way (i.e., not as "the absence of emotional influence"). You also might want to use the same broad statement that opens the Hot Cognition page (and, of course, be sure to link to each other once the Cold Cognition page is created.)

The page is well-organized, though you might consider having headings for the specific tasks that you have organized in a list.

When you split the pages, be sure to double check that you have the complete references on each page, since some things are cited on both pages and the references won't appear properly if the complete citation isn't on the page.

Great work! Regretscholar (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)