User talk:GregEdelsward/sandbox

Enjoyed
- I found the chart for "Theory in Outline" as a good way to lay out his theory, however since it is in point form, you may need to add a break(or < / br > without the spaces)to each line so that its easier to read
- I liked the various pictures that you used as they made me curious about the content
- I like the inclusion of the tip of the tongue (which I find interesting) to argue about studies that show empirical data from oppositional views. It gives a more interesting and complete picture
- I liked the section about future research because included Willem Levelt research as a part of a broader research in psycholinguistics that has its limitations

Possible improvements
- The phrase "Levelt is an expert psycholinguist" needs a reference since it could be taken as an opinion instead of a fact
- The same goes for his contributions and statement about his influences
- The citations may need to be changed so that it appears as a number rather than as a citation between chevrons "<>". It would make it easier to see where they came from since it would be a link to the reference rather than chevrons which might be hard to understand what they mean for the citation.
- It would be nice to know what the “DIVA” stands for like you did with “SOA” or a link to an article in Wikipedia that expands on DIVA (e.g. “article on Neurocomputational speech processing” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurocomputational_speech_processing)
- Another link could be used for the word Lemma(e.g. Lemma)so that anyone interested can get a better understanding of what that concept stands for. Specially because it is used several times in different contexts
- It would be nice to have a link for the word "priming" since there is no explanation for it and some people may not know what that is - It would be nice to have references or links to the findings of the other speech errors "malapropisms" and "mixed-error" mentioned in the “Limitations” section so that one could understand where they come from in terms of research or just to look them up

Overall I found the article to be clear and concise, and I do not have any major criticisms. I found the table at the beginning was very helpful in outlining the theory, and you did a great job using bolding throughout the article to highlight key terms. The use of images was helpful in illustrating both the brain regions in mapping speech along with the spreading activation model of the mental lexicon. I also thought you also did a great job highlighting the status of current research, and I found your section on limitations to be balanced and well rounded.

I do have a few minor suggestions for improvements that I think would enhance the article. In general I thought there could have been more links to other wikipedia pages throughout the article. Even linking to a few key terms such as "lexical decision task" or "psycholinguistics" might help newer readers who aren't as familiar with these terms have quick access to the relevant pages. I also thought that the reference tags could have been cleaned up a little bit as the use of brackets at the end of each sentence adds unnecessary clutter for readers. In the History section, I thought it might be a good idea to use a numbered list to describe the 3 major modules in producing speech as having the numbers within one long paragraph breaks up the flow for readers. Finally, in the current research section perhaps you could elaborate more on what the DIVA acronym stands for. Overall, these improvements are minor and I thought you did a great job with this article! Johnanstett (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC) John Anstett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnanstett (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)