User talk:BrandiWrites/sandbox

For Ross: Yes, this is an important neuropsychological test battery. It has been widely used and there is an extensive literature around it. You will find plenty of material. If you want to see how the Wikipedia project is graded, just look ahead in the assignments. They need to be updated, but will be essentially the same. Assignments are not necessarily due weekly, but I expect everyone to be working steadily, week by week, to develop the articles. J.R. Council (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
For Brandi: This is a good topic - see above. Can't tell you why it has not gotten more attention on Wikipedia before now. Regarding what to be aware of, for starters it has a fairly long history. It is based on the work of the Russian neuropsychologist Luria, so you should make this part of the background. Definitely write about test development, reliability and validity evidence, and research and clinical applications. J.R. Council (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
For Ben: Yes, review representative research, but keep it general. No need to go into great detail on any particular study. Also yes - review the development of the test. This is a history of psych class, after all, so go into its history. J.R. Council (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5

1. To-do list: Makes sense, but you should as specific as you can about the tasks required and who will be responsible. This will likely save some frustration later. Not seeing a statement of commitment from Ross.
2. Outline: You need to differentiate your outline. Adding details will make writing your lead section easier. Just because the assignment has been completed doesn't mean you can't keep developing your outline.
3. References: Right now the reference section is not formatted for Wikipedia. As you add text later, be sure to use the drop-down menu to attach reference citations in appropriate places and format references properly. J.R. Council (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Assignment 6

For Ross:Bakasuraryu (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I think that you're lead section covers what the LNNB is and what it measures. I think that it feels like you could expand and clarify each region of the test a little clearer. I think that your lead section could stand alone once you revise a couple sentences. Your lead Section does cover all the topics in the LNNB and summarizes key points. The section was easy to read and straight to the point.

For Ross:BrandiWrites (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Your lead section nicely summarizes the Luria-Nebraska and would be able to stand on its own. It defines the topic, establishes context, and summarizes main points. It doesn't really explain why the topic is notable or mention controversies (I do think there is at least one), so you could add those in. For what we are planning to cover in our article, the lead section does seem a bit short and doesn't quite touch on everything in our outline (ie similar tests, reliability and validity, clinical applications). It is well written and organized and everything makes sense. Overall, it is a very good start but can still be expanded further.

For Ben:BrandiWrites (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Your lead section covers the basics of what the Luria-Nebraska is and how it works. It is great as a basic introduction but probably could not quite stand alone as an overview of our whole article because it mostly deals with method, scales, and some clinical application. It also needs to mention some of the history, development, similar tests, and reliability and validity. It defines the topic, establishes context, and summarizes the main points of methods and clinical applications. You can still add in why it is notable and discuss controversies. The information itself is very good, but it does need some revision for grammar, punctuation, and typos. Overall, this is a great start to the lead section and just needs to be expanded to cover all the topics in our outline.

For Ben:RossMick (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC) I like the information you put in the lead section. Shows good overall knowledge of the topic. I however feel the grammar is a little off with some of the commas and I don't feel like it flows well. With a little more information about other areas of the topic, as Brandi was saying, and cleaning up the organization of the sentences it would look nice.

For Brandi:RossMick (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC) I thought your lead was very good. You seemed to hit all the areas of the topic that we will be talking about in the entire article with a nice flow to it. The only thing I thought was a little of is the sentence, A similar test is the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery, because its in the middle of the paragraph. It could just be removed and just have the sentence on why its comparable to that test.

Assignment 7

I really like Brandi's lead and think we should focus on hers to further develop our lead. I think we could add the year 1981 when it was created and move how it is similar to the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery towards the bottom. Otherwise I believe it covers everything we want to talk about and even gives a brief description of the battery in general. RossMick (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a Group Lead based on mine and worked in Dr. Council's and Ross's suggestions. I combined parts of both of your leads into it so that it seems to cover everything. Go ahead and look over it and add in or change anything that you think can make it better. BrandiWrites (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice work Brandi! I think it looks really nice and I like how you put together a little of Ben and my article into yours.RossMick (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead section looks great. I think it covers everything that will be in the article itself. Bakasuraryu (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6

Nice work, group, both on leads and critiques. I agree with Ross that Brandi's lead provides a good starting point for working up the combined lead for Assignment 7. I also agree with Ross that there is no need to mention the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery in the lead. Details like that can go into the main article. I think you can add in some details from the other leads to what Brandi has done, and you'll have a nice intro. J.R. Council (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7

Excellent work! Please go on to develop the main article. Just a couple of comments/changes needed:

1. You refer to the Halstead-Reitan, but readers cannot be expected to know what this is. For the lead, just refer to "other" neuropsych tests.
2. Please confirm (or not) that all group members contributed to this assignment. J.R. Council (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please help me out here! I can't assign grades until I know who did what on this assignment. J.R. Council (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity on the contributions. Ross made suggestions, I compiled the Group Lead using mine with parts from both Ross's and Ben's, and then Ross and Ben both reviewed it and approved. BrandiWrites (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah my apologizes on the late reply. I agree with Brandi, She wrote it and I suggest to her on what to write and then she combined all ours together. I believe we all contributed to this assignment. RossMick (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Assignment 8

I started doing the method section. Its still pretty rough and I'll continue to work on it. Its hard to find sources that described exactly what happens when they administrate the test, just general things. It may get easier to write when their is context around it then I can make it flow better and complement the rest of the article. I also stared the Reference and notes section for our citations. RossMick (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Ross, I'm having the same problem with sources for my section too. I was having the same problem with where the battery was being specifically used but I thought I would give a general idea at the very least if you guys have any ideas of what else i should include, that would help. Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was able to find a good source for my section, but I will still work on it more to try to add in more sources and detail. You guys might want to check out the source I used; it's a physical book in the library. I'm not sure what it has concerning your topics but I know it is several pages long and only the first couple were history. I think we have a good start. BrandiWrites (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8

Hi Group 2. You continue to do great work on this. Here are a few suggestions as you continue to develop the article:

• Lead is fine.
• History: Needs more reference citations. I'm not sure what the last sentence means: "Controversy over its use of both quantitative and qualitative methods helped increase its popularity." Why would controversy make a test more popular? Is 'controversy' the right word here?
• Method: This section should be titled "Administration and scoring." Needs more detail on administration.
• Reliability and validity: This should be a separate section, not subsection. I don't think you need to list all the subscales here - it really doesn't have direct relevance to reliability and validity, especially since you don't give reliability data for the scales. Maybe just list a few scales and their reliabilities.
• Applications: looks good, but needs references.
• Fix up your references. They are now listed in a section titled, 'Notes.'
• Proofread carefully for typos, spelling, and grammar.

This is just about ready to go. Let me know when you make these changes, and I'll ask Ian at Wiki Ed to look it over before approving for publication to main article space. J.R. Council (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Assignment 9

I think we should be just about done with this article now. I finished the History section, and since I had said before that I would check the grammar, I read through all the sections and improved any problems I noticed. It looks like we have done everything except we still need a citation from Ben for the Applications section. Then we will be ready for review. BrandiWrites (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

How we responded to the feedback: I added another reference into the History section and got rid of the last sentence, instead replacing it with a short paragraph that explained the issue better. I also went through the whole article and edited grammar and spelling. It looks like Ross changed the title of the Method section to Administration and Scoring, added more detail, made Reliability and Validity its own section, removed the list of scales, added more information, and fixed the title of References. Ben added in references/citations and more detail to the Applications section. BrandiWrites (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Great work on this! I'm sure Ian will think so too. I can't see anything that needs changing, except to add some links. J.R. Council (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

Nice work on your draft article. I made a few copyedits, but beyond that it looks good to me. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Great work on this! It's time to publish! Please follow the instructions below Assignment 9 when you do this. If you haven't done so already, please read comments from Ian, followed by my own, in the sandbox talk page. Please email me when you've finished moving the article over. J.R. Council (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)