Talk:Representational momentum/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MadCow257 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad coverage

I scanned through the 2005 review by hubbard (link), and am concerned about the coverage of this article. It seemed like there is a fair amount of stuff covered in the review that is not mentioned here. In particular, the theory and psychology behind why representational momentum occurs is not covered outside of the lead. This is definitely needs to be expanded and given its own section
For the "Events" (what does that mean?) category, I would add at least the representational gravity experiment mentioned in Hubbard because it is easy to understand (i.e. 2D) and appears important
Another thing that would be good is to generalise the types of variation used in the experiments; the classification used in the review is 1) target, 2) display 3) context 4) observer. "The importance of labeling" is a start for the "context" part

Right now I am going to put this review on hold. I think the article is off to a great start (22 sources and good work on the videos), but still needs some content expansion/development MadCow257 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Thoughts about GA review

Thanks for the review, very helpful!

I think you are right that a "Theory" section would be in improvement, I'll get started on that. There's a new chapter that will be helpful, and I will keep firmly in mind the need for a neutral point of view in the presentation.
Yes, the "Events" label wasn't helpful. I just switched it to "Specific results" because that's really what the list is.
Representational gravity is more complicated than Hubbard's review indicates, might even be it's own article. Does it make sense to start it here?
- Sure MadCow257 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hubbard's categories didn't strike me as "neutral point of view" because the other researchers who publish about representational momentum don't classify their work in his terms, and don't use the categories to inspire particular experiments.
- OK, good that you know that then; I just think there needs to be some kind of categories since there are so many different experiments, and obviously there are some general types MadCow257 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Munger (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this GA review? No comments for a couple weeks now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will close this as not passing. The changes I suggested are nontrivial and there hasn't been progress in a while; if the new section on theory can be added feel free to submit it again. MadCow257 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]