Template:Did you know nominations/Implicit learning

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Implicit learning

(

)

... that people are able to implicitly learn underlying sequential structure in a series using sequence learning?

Created/expanded by R-Bot6 (talk). Self nom at 04:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the article and left a few notes, in edit summaries and in an "explain" template. Drop me a line if you have any questions or if you'd like me to return to the nomination or the article. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits to fix some of the suggested problems. Let me know if any further modifications are required! R-Bot6 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs a new reviewer. (Drmies has bowed out, and recommends an expert be found.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I can step in here. I'm a psychologist. Learning isn't my specialty, but I've taught it in Psych 101. What are the specific questions to address? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs a full review. As Drmies put it on his talk page, "it's pretty big, and pretty technical, and it's not my field", so while he felt he could copyedit it, he couldn't really determine whether it held together and made sense from the technical side of things. Also, the usual stuff has never been done, like size, expansion, neutral point of view, and paraphrase checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't sure if there was any one specific thing or if it was total. I'll read it on Monday. I try not to bring my work home with me on weekends. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing now... – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Approximately 17x expanded, the minimum threshold of one citation per paragraph is met, though some paragraphs only have one citation at the end of each paragraph. The Reber source, which is the most used source in the article, is not available online. The second most cited source, the Dienes and Berry article, fortunately is available online, since it is the citation used for the hook fact. I believe a {{Subscription required}} template should be used here, since I'm accessing the article through my institutional access.
As to the hook, the crux of the matter, Dienes and Berry spend many pages going over the evidence for and against. They support the notion of sequence learning. The discussion section (pp 19-20) starts: "The reviews of the literatures for artificial grammar learning, the control of complex systems, and sequence learning all provided evidence that subjects could learn to perform well in a task without being able to freely report what they had learned or why they had made the right decision." Based on that, I'm comfortable giving this article a check mark. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)