Talk:Word superiority effect

Psychology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22/2/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Cleanup

This article has been cleaned up. --Anon.

It still makes very little sense. It relies on quite a lot of (un-linked) background knowledge, and reference to Figure 2 is unhelpful without such a figure. 131.111.200.200 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added/fixed lots of things (still largely incomplete, especially because of the one-sidedness of previous info). Not sure about my tone/whether it gets too detailed. Triacontahedron (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References incomplete

This document needs to have the references updated to match those in the reference list. --Andy 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we are criticizing it... The intro mentions at least two references not given inline or in the references list as far as I could tell. The references themsleves also sorely need ISBN numbers. The two pictures appear to be scanned from a textbook or something- as such they are copyvios unless someone reveals their source and proffers a fair use justification. I think there were one or two other problem; I either fixed'em or left comments in the page source. --maru (talk) contribs 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship

This contribution was made by a group of students attending the Rochester Institute of Technology as a group project for Dr. Herbert's Cognitive Pyschology class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritcogpsych (talk • contribs)

For why I've blocked this group account, please see User talk:Ritcogpsych. --maru (talk) contribs 05:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement

Several suggestions for improvement include, but are not limited to, the lead section, overall structure, balance, and use of reliable sources. The lead section needs to be further summarized. It seems that it goes into a lot of detail about the research. Maybe the discussion of early research on WSE could become a section in and of itself. Regarding the layout of the article, I recommend reorganizing the sections. Start by defining WSE, and then talk about the hypotheses, then research, then models. Finally I recommend adding a section regarding the implications of WSE for cognitive psychology and how it relates to cognitive theories. As far as balance, it appears that more is said about the Interactive Activation Model compared to the Activation Verification model. The same can be said concerning the section on adverse word superiority effect. Finally, I did notice that there are sections throughout the article for which sources are not provided. More specifically, the “Hypotheses” section needs to include more sources. Otherwise it appears to be a product of the author’s opinion. JudithBrizuela 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudithBrizuela (talk • contribs)