Marley Hughes

I think that a diagram or flow chart outlining the neuronal recycling hypothesis would have helped to better explain how this idea is represented. Perhaps stating what the hypothesis is in the first section may be easier for users looking for quick answers, and then elaborating on the history later for those who have a deeper interest in the topic. I like the relation to cognitive science as a whole especially in the history section, definitely ties right into class learning. Perhaps a quick sentence describing plasticity would have enhanced the page so that users do not have to read an entire other document. Page is well linked to other sites on wikipedia. Perhaps a directions for future research section would have added to the page. I like the criticisms section, it keeps the page bias free and gives it an encyclopdic tone. Just looking at the references it seems that a majority are from the work of the creator of this hypothesis Dehaene, if a more even amount of research from other authors were presented it could reduce bias and create a more fleshed out entry on the topic for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teahughes (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Gregory

Things that I thought were good:

I thought that overall, it was really clear how your topic fit cognitive science as a whole (psychology, evolutionary psychology etc. aspects)
Thought that the picture really helped especially in that section (visual word form) because there are a lot of technical words that don't have links so the picture added some perspective of where you were talking about in the brain
Your links were very well done and I feel that as much as possible you tried to simplify your topic and/or add a link
Thought that it was overall really objective (criticisms included)

Things that could be improved:

I feel like your article has a lot of blocks of text and that breaking it up with a table and/or more bullets would make it easier to read (example: maybe for the related theories section you could add a table with similarities and differences between those theories and the neuronal recycling hypothesis to make it more clear)
although the criticisms section was great, it would be helpful to know maybe what is the more supported view (or at least have more than one article in the opposite direction) just so readers can get an idea of what research backs up more
another thing I might add is if there are any future directions in the area of study (I don't know if there are) but maybe for example since it focuses so much on culture if different cultures and/or languages show different evidence

Good Job :)

(Cgregor5 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Marley Hughes

Chrsitina it seems as though we have similar ideas on how this page can be improved upon. I also agree that breaking up the text with more visual aids would be a good idea as well.

Laura Zielinski - author

Thank you both for your input! I took all your suggestions into account. First off,I added in a short aside concerning plasticity in the intro paragraph, as I agree, it is a fundamental concept for my topic. I also added in a future research section, which I found fairly difficult as this hypothesis is so recent. Additionally, I changed the entire 'related theories' section into a table, and added in some bullet points to the 'criticism' section in order to break up the text a little bit. Finally, I added in Cohen and Dehaene's (authors of initial paper postulating the existence of the VWFA) response to the criticisms section in order to provide a more complete view of the debate.
Marley - I tried to think of a way to create a figure summarizing the main ideas of the hypothesis, but unfortunately I could not. I also think I like the history section where it is, because I tried to summarize the hypothesis in the intro section for readers just looking for a brief outline of the topic. I think the history section is a natural prerequisite for delving into a more detailed description of the hypothesis, as it gives the reader with the necessary background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzielin (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]