Talk:Representational momentum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Great article[edit]

Very interesting! Baska436 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Representational momentum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MadCow257 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Broad coverage[edit]

  • I scanned through the 2005 review by hubbard (link), and am concerned about the coverage of this article. It seemed like there is a fair amount of stuff covered in the review that is not mentioned here. In particular, the theory and psychology behind why representational momentum occurs is not covered outside of the lead. This is definitely needs to be expanded and given its own section
  • For the "Events" (what does that mean?) category, I would add at least the representational gravity experiment mentioned in Hubbard because it is easy to understand (i.e. 2D) and appears important
  • Another thing that would be good is to generalise the types of variation used in the experiments; the classification used in the review is 1) target, 2) display 3) context 4) observer. "The importance of labeling" is a start for the "context" part

Right now I am going to put this review on hold. I think the article is off to a great start (22 sources and good work on the videos), but still needs some content expansion/development MadCow257 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts about GA review[edit]

Thanks for the review, very helpful!

  • I think you are right that a "Theory" section would be in improvement, I'll get started on that. There's a new chapter that will be helpful, and I will keep firmly in mind the need for a neutral point of view in the presentation.
  • Yes, the "Events" label wasn't helpful. I just switched it to "Specific results" because that's really what the list is.
  • Representational gravity is more complicated than Hubbard's review indicates, might even be it's own article. Does it make sense to start it here?
  • Hubbard's categories didn't strike me as "neutral point of view" because the other researchers who publish about representational momentum don't classify their work in his terms, and don't use the categories to inspire particular experiments.
    • OK, good that you know that then; I just think there needs to be some kind of categories since there are so many different experiments, and obviously there are some general types MadCow257 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Greta Munger (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this GA review? No comments for a couple weeks now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I will close this as not passing. The changes I suggested are nontrivial and there hasn't been progress in a while; if the new section on theory can be added feel free to submit it again. MadCow257 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)