Talk:Psycholinguistics/Writing

Word Search Answers
AKKADIAN

JIAHU

MESOPOTAMIA

FRONTAL

GYRUS

EXNER

PHONOLOGICAL

SYLLABARIE

HIEROGLYPH

CUNEIFORM

PICTOGRAM

MORPHEME

ALPHABET

FLOWER

HAYES

RHETORICAL

GOALS

COMPOSITION

ORGANIZATION

HIERARCHICAL

CREATIVE

PRESERVE

SPEECH

READING

TECHNOLOGY

PRINT

TYPEWRITTEN

Hilaryy 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review: Writing

Headings/Organization •	Although the original headings were created, I would suggest creating sub categories, especially for the historical sections on writing. •	This can help the reader find the points of interest and focus most on what they are looking for, as you do cover a huge span of the topic, from historical to current day. •	Using the might useful as well to create some space between each of the topics.

Some suggestions for this: •	In the introduction, you menti

on another view of writing, (linear/not). Make that another section. Alternative theories and questioning theories doesn’t seem to flow well or really fit in an introduction. o	You refer to the linear theory in the historical section again, maybe combine the two and put it in a section lower down the page? •	Break up the historical contexts depending on the society, era or type of writings. This may require some formatting of your actual text. •	In writing and the brain: Make section for each person and what they contributed. •	In the writing and cognition section: Make a section for each of the three processes. Format this section a lot, as it was difficult to understand which points were connected to which theory. There were four points, but three theories and points under each. Very difficult to understand.

Sentence Format Overall, the sentences were very wordy and a lot longer then they needed to be. It was very well written and probably much better then I could do, but for an online Wikipedia page text, I would suggest keeping the sentences slightly shorter and more to the point. Writing for the web is quite different then writing a paper. To make it more user friendly, I would suggest listing some of your points with bullets and again, heading use. Possibly including some pictures of what early day writings would be could be helpful, without plagiarizing of course. By breaking up the paragraphs and longer sentences, it creates a much more efficient and ergonomic web page. Sections Personally, I found the historical sections interesting but lengthy. I know that there is a word limit that has to be reached, but I would suggest edited them to include the more relevant information.

Also, I know this sounds awful, but I would, perhaps, simplify the whole article. I think that a base knowledge too high of the reader was assumed about the topic at some points during the article. This could be as easy as defining what is being referred to more frequently. Take for example, the word syllaberies. This was mentioned in the Introduction as an example, but as the reader, I didn’t know what that was, so the point was lost.

The Flower and Hayes model was also difficult for me to understand, and I had to read it a couple of times. It could have been due to the formatting. Still, simplifying could be helpful.

Spelling error in the historical context section: writting instead of writing.

You mentioned differences between cursive and printing. I feel that it would be an important section to have in the article. It seems fairly relevant.

It was a really great article and very informative. The amount of effort you put in was definitely shown. If you have any questions about what I meant by anything, let me know! Ectoombs 19:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)