User talk:Savannah Shivers/sandbox

Hello! Here's my peer review for your article: I would remove the sentence in your third paragraph that says that boundary extension happens in all age groups because it is redundant. I'd also reword the next sentence in that paragraph because it's probably not PC to call people with autism as having "damaged brains." Maybe say instead "Boundary extension even happens with people who have disorders such as autism" or something along those lines. In your fourth paragraph, I don't understand the connection between the possible causes of BE and the examples you give. It seems like you're giving examples that demonstrate what BE is rather than what the causes could be. In that same paragraph, the part where you talk about why BE is important to study might be too much of an opinion/argument for a Wikipedia article. I'm not 100% on this but think about it. Including pictures is definitely a good idea for this topic. Are the first four paragraphs meant to be the intro to the article? If so it might be a little long. Same "damaged brains" comment for the Down Syndrome section. In general, I would be aware of when you start a sentence with "so" and make sure you don't do it more than once per paragraph. Overall, I think this article is really good, informative, neutral, and covers the material well! Nice job! Ktrathen (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Peer review: Overall: The headings should only have the first word capitalized to be compliant with Wiki style articles: for example Vocabulary Related to Boundary Extension should just be Vocabulary related to boundary extension. Also it would be nice to add wikilinks to integrate article into larger wiki conversation. Look to try to reduce the amount of times you use the phrase "for example" Mini Changes: In the first paragraph last sentence: maybe use the word demonstrate instead of display. When saying, "Boundary extension even happens with people who have disorders such as people with Down Syndrome"...using the word people twice sounds redundant, look to delete the second "people". When saying "Perceptual schemas are applicable to boundary extension because one's perceptual schema might add in background and boundary details that were not in the original photo but a part of one's perceptual schema of the photo." I think it needs to say "but are a part of one's" When referring to those with down syndrome...not sure but are they actually considered "patients"? I would find a different term. Overall, I really enjoyed your article. Felt that it was natural and very informative. Lastly, I would take one final look through to make sure your sentences are as brief and to the point as possible, in order to reduce wordiness. Great work! ReWest (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)