Talk:Dual representation (psychology)

Most sources from one scholar

All but one of the sources cited in this article appear to come from Judy DeLoache. If DeLoache is a leading scholar in this area, of course her work should be included. If she is the only person doing significant work in this regard, however, the concept may not rise to the required level of notability. Regardless of notability, Wikipedia articles generally should be based on secondary and tertiary sources such as review articles, textbooks, and compendia, not primarily or purely on primary sources documenting new research. Please add secondary and tertiary sources where possible. Cnilep (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this and fix it soon. Catherine Kwon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

1. Quality of Information: 2 – Includes up to date information

2. Article size: 2 – Within Size limit

3. Readability: 2 – Readable to all readers

4. Refs: 1 – Needs references from different authors.

5. Links: 1 – Needs more links to wiki articles amongst each paragraph.

6. Responsive to comments: 0 – Needs to Respond to comment above

7. Formatting: 2 – Great images and layout of article

8. Writing: 1 – Some grammatical errors additionally very wordy sentences

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 – Used real name

10. Outstanding?: 2 – Describes term well

Total: 15 out of 20

JahedaK talk (1:39 PM, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

This wikipedia article is very detailed and concise. It has appropriate amount of information and incorporates factual and encyclopedic information.

2. Article size: 2

It has fulfilled the size limit.

3. Readability: 2

It is easy to follow and information is clearly stated.

4. Refs: 1

The reference is only from one author so this article definitely needs more references from different authors. Also, try to find more secondary sources. I think your sources are mostly from the primary sources. (If not, please just correct me)

5. Links: 1

Try to link to other pages throughout the entire wikipedia article. Your link is only at the section of 'brain development '. For example, I think you can definitely link 'toddler memory' to page such as "Memory development".

6. Responsive to comments: 1

You replied to comment above but still have not fixed it in the content.

7. Formatting: 2

The article contains pictures, follows wikipedian style, and is neatly organized. It was very easy to follow and the pictures assisted understanding. The formatting was really good and meets all the requirement.

8. Writing: 2

Except complicated sentence structure, I think the writing style was adequate and readable.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

Used the real name.

10. Outstanding?: 2

This article is novel and outstanding. It is an interesting topic and definitely catches the attention of researchers.

Total: 17 out of 20

Doyeon Koo (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2

Information is complete and concise.

2. Article size: 2

Size limit met.

3. Readability: 2

Good flow to the article.

4. Refs: 1

Use sources from multiple authors

5. Links: 0

Links are insufficient - there are may opportunities to link to other pages.

6. Responsive to comments: 2

Everything has been addressed

7. Formatting: 2

Formatting is clean.

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2

Total: 17 out of 20

Akumar60 (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)