Talk:Psychology of film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


In the cinematic techniques section before the editing section, I had a hard time understanding the first sentence. Also, I would add the last sentence, which is separate from the rest to the rest of the paragraph. In general, I would try to make this paragraph flow better. There are also some grammatical errors.

I think that you included great information in the editing section. I would try and make it flow a little bit better. I would also add more background information into it, especially in the second paragraph, so people outside of the Psychology world may have an easier time understanding it.

I think that you did a great job explaining the study in the sequence of events section. This was easily understood and easy to follow. If possible, I would link spatiotemporal to a Wikipedia page about this area of the brain. This may help people if they are able to see what area of the brain you are referring to.

In the spatial information section, I would explain what spatial memory and spatial coding is for readers who are unfamiliar with what it is. You could also link it to a Wikipedia page about spatial memory.

In the expertise and awareness of audience manipulation section, I had a hard time understanding/following your first sentence. I would also explain what interpretational awareness is when you discuss it in the second paragraph of this section. I think this will help readers understand the experiment you are explaining.

In the segmentation section, I would add more background information the first experiment you discuss. I think that it will help people understand the experiment better.

In the eye movement section, I would explain the experiment in which they found a center of screen bias. I would give in general more background information for this experiment.

In general, I think that you have really good information and very interesting studies. I would try to connect the sections together and make them a little less choppy. I also would add more information under the bottom up and top down factors section so people are more aware of what these are and how they relate to film. SKC 2013 (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nat's Edit[edit]

Hey SKC,

Really look at this first section of your article. There are quite a few grammatical errors where you must have inserted words and forgotten to take out prepositions that no longer fit appropriately. Also, you talk about filmic language code...I am confused as to what that is. This sentence really needs to be worked on: "The power/powerlessness angle’s universal meaning is an example of filmic language code, interacting with the appropriate context."

I would model the rest of your sections like the sequence of events section. This section goes in depth into the study that best fits or exemplifies the section as well as provide explanation of phenomena that readers may not be familiar with. Assume that the reader did not read the articles you read and go with that. You need to break it down in a concise and systematic way would be my advice. Explain what spatial memory coding, filmic language code, expand on eye movement research and implications. What is invisible style? Explain and expand on the EST theory some more. You also might want to go and find more research to support your statements. Great job at explaining empirical research...just be consistent and do this for all the sections.

Nathalya Cubas (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)