Talk:Perceptual narrowing
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Areas of Improvement for Perceptual Narrowing wikiarticle:
Add references and citations and links (external and as well as to other wikiarticles), Expand definition section of what PN is, Section detailing effect of PN in terms of brain anatomy must be added, Examples of how PN is applied to each of the five senses (visual PN vs auditory PN, etc.) must be added, Information about brain mechanisms/structures involved in PN must be added, More accurately define how PN can be related to disorder, More accurately define how PN can be related to behavior, Look for/create figures and illustrations, Add section discussing history of research involving PN
Prof Comments
[edit]Great start revising this stub. Suggestions for further improvement: In the Intro the "prevailing theory" sentence seems incomplete, like it's missing a "as they age" follow-up. You don't need to capitalize terms (e.g., Myelin should read myelin). In the cross-species section add a concluding sentence to help the reader understand the importance of the research. The neural mechanisms section should be expanded, as could several other sections. ProfRox (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Classmate comments
[edit]Good info. It is very easy to read and understand clearly so good job with that. The headings of each section confused me a bit because they all are bold so it took me a bit to figure out that the 2nd and third headings are subheadings below the first, so maybe try fixing them to make it more clear. Also the links to other wiki sites do not need to be capatilized. Overall content was good and understandable.Shep3954 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Classmate comment
[edit]I really liked the headings of each section, the format was good and very clear what the sections were pertaining to. The definition is a little choppy and needs to flow more. Maybe revise the sentences to either use transitions or combine similar thoughts. Otherwise great page! Especially loved the species and racial sections! --Tayl2461 (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Very clear and readable. I liked the order of your information- it flowed very well. There was one phrase "plasticity is at play" in the neural mechanisms section that I did not like, but this is a personal preference. I would have used "is evident" or something along those terms. Great use of internal references- I found them to be very helpful in understanding the topics you were laying out on the page without your page going into unnecessary information. Overall, great job! cbear11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Great page, very organized and concise. I completely agree with the "plasticity is at play" comment, was just confused by the phrase, you may want to consider using a difference choice of words. Also internal references are helpful for topic and those interested in the subject matter. Again, nice work! (Mcasc21 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC))
I also thought the page was very good. I most appreciated how clear and to the point all the information was. The information was ordered well and useful. I would want to know a little more about specific time periods, but that is most likely to be learned from the external links. Mackey14321 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)