User talk:Olivedesign
A brownie for you!
[edit]
|
Good luck in your wiki adventures! Gryffinpuff (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Olivedesign, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review!
[edit]Hello! I am in a peer review group with you and 3 other students, and to ease the confusion of who should review what articles, I took the liberty of deciding for us. You are reviewing mine and Purple-chameleon. You will be reviewed by me and Brainsteam. Feel free to reach out with any questions! Thanks! BlueBottle (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Olivedesign, I will also be reviewing you! Let us know when you'd like the reviews completed and when your article/edits are ready to be reviewed! Thanks! Brainsteam (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Olivedesign,
My article has been ready for revision since Tuesday, could you please review as soon as you have the time?
Best, Purple-chameleon (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Purple-chameleon,
I checked on Friday and saw the "TALK ABOUT THE MARSHMALLOW STUDY" text that is in your sandbox. I assumed that it was still in progress and was trying to give you more time as I know it is an especially busy week for all of us. I will review it now. Best,
Olivedesign (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi Olivedesign, I will start by reviewing some big-picture things and then review the smaller things! First, I think you've done a really good job with sectioning the article and you've added a ton of information which is great. Your language is concise and fact-based, very good for Wikipedia. The "measurement" and "cognitive slippage and schizophrenia" sections are quite short, I might suggest adding some more information to inform the reader. For example, you might be able to detail what the Cognitive Slippage test looks for and maybe some example questions if those exist, or a picture if you can find one. For the other section, you may want to add something more about its appearance in schizophrenia. Does it look any different? Does it effect other pieces of cognition? Or you could add some statistics, how many people who have schizophrenia show this symptom? For some smaller points, I think you cover a lot of good information here. I would be careful with citations, you're missing some in the "cognitive slippage and schizophrenia" and "magical ideation" sections. Also, I do not think you need a section heading for the introduction paragraph. By comparing the page to that of Social Anhedonia, there may be a couple small things to alter. For example, Social Anhedonia has a section called "significance in depression" which you may want to mimic with schizophrenia if the articles are relatable. Lastly, when editing the last section on social anhedonia, be sure to put citations at the end of sentences and paragraphs, as well as taking out long quotes and paraphrasing or summarizing instead. It's a great start! Nice job! Brainsteam (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Another Peer Review
[edit]Hello Olivedesign! Overall, I think you have added some great content as well as organization to this article! I see that you still have a lot of raw material on your sandbox, which will be useful information for expanding on some of the sections (measurement and cognitive slippage in schizophrenia, specifically). Is there a connection between schizophrenia and schizotypic disorders? If so, I think that it can all be under one big heading and have the information on schizotypy under a sub heading in that section. That way it translates into an association between the two. And it will help the schizophrenia section look more full. Also, a spelling question: is it Schytzotypic or schizotypic? You have both and I'm not sure if one is right or wrong or if they are both right. I think the Measurement section could improve with more information about the test. How it works, what the questions are like, etc. The Relation to other Schytzotypic Characteristics section is pretty bare still, I'm sure you are still working on it. I think the Magical Ideation bit could use more background information on what magical thinking is, etc. And of course add onto Social Anhedonia section as well! I think you have really transformed the page into something easier to understand and you have introduced some good sources as well! Hope this helped! BlueBottle (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)