Crossfire8228

Hi, This is Dr. D. I have reviewed, briefly, the interesting articles you have posted to your queue and find these articles very doable: Energy (psychological), Introspection, Macrocognition, and Affordance. Personally, I would like to see introspection addressed, but any of these will be fine. The article, Cognitive map, has already been selected. The article, Inert knowledge, may be somewhat esoteric and hard to find resources, so I would consider it "iffy." You have several excellent choices and 1 “maybe.” I suggest that you select one of those first four and focus on that one for the project. Thank you! WebFlower1 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Introspection Article Revisions

Hello Crossfire,

I did not mean to come across as rude; I was merely reading various Wikipedia articles and came across the Introspection page with all of its markup. I am still relatively new to being an active editor on Wikipedia; I mainly stick to fixing grammatical and formatting errors. I was rather baffled when I came across your changes, and assumed they were vandalism, which was why I undid them. I would think that, even temporary, revision marks such as those should probably be kept off of the public version of the page, if there is a way to do that (perhaps via copying to ones sandbox?). I hope your project goes well; although I am not a psychological professional, I did study it for a number of years and consider it one of my main fields of interest, so any improvement of psychology articles on Wikipedia is most welcome.

Cheers.

Brokkr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Introspection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mental state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

• The lead section is a good summary of the article and gives a nice short definition of the subject. The one issue I did find is that you second statement “introspection is sometimes referenced in a spiritual context […]” has no reference. Was that from the first reference or a different one? It would be helpful to clarify that.

Philosophical Origins

• I think that something maybe could be done with the philosophical origins section. As of now it’s only one sentence. However, you could add some information. Try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and search introspection. It’s a very informative website and most articles are updated frequently (less than two years for the introspection article).

• You could add some about the philosophical need for it (e.g. epistemology)
• It’s very extensive and covers the entire history of introspection in philosophy

Wundt

• When you discuss Wundt, maybe talk a little about the division between experimental and social (Volkerpsychologie). Why can’t we examine higher mental functions?

• Our textbook would be a good source for this.

• You could also describe an experiment (e.g. dropping a ball) and how introspection would be used.

• You also ignored the feelings part of Wundt’s theories. What are they? Tri-dimensional theory of emotions, etc.

• Again, our textbook covers this quite well.

• Possibly add in the criticisms of Wundtian psychology/introspection. This could help give a more “balanced” view of Wundt. You’re not being biased at all, but it would be nice for people to see the pros and cons that have been offered by past philosophers.

Titchener

• You could maybe do a Wundt vs Titchener table (kind of like Dr. Davis’ in the powerpoint). This way you could compare and contrast the two in regards to introspection. It might be kind of hard to do because you’re not focusing on their entire theory, just introspection, but if you could do it the differences would be really easy to see.

• You could maybe give an example of Titchener’s introspection:

• Green triangle, reduce it to its elements (or something like that)

• Just like with Wundt, it might be nice to provide some of the criticisms against Titchener’s introspection.

General Overview

1. Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? Yes, see above.

1. Does the contribution appear to be cut and pasted from an existing source without appropriate citation? All of the additions from sources are appropriately cited. Although it would be nice to have some clarification in the article summary.

1. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? There is no unnecessary jargon and it is explained when used.

1. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate? There are an abundance of wikilinks and they all appear to work.

1. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion? The article is of a neutral point of view and all statements are supported by articles.

1. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date, except those that are added to provide historical relevance to the article? All of the facts and statements were from academic articles or other reputable sources.

1. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language? The contribution was written very well and was not redundant, confusing, or misleading.

1. Are the grammar, verb tenses, and spelling correct? The grammar and spelling was all correct.

1. Is the page categorized appropriately? The categories of the page were all well done. I really liked the improvements from the previous versions.

1. In general, are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points? The article did well at explaining the important aspects. However, there are some areas which could be fleshed out. I’ve included my input on those areas above.

1. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as original articles? Are citations done properly? Everything was able to be found easily even though not all were linked.

1. Are references formatted properly? All of the references seemed to be properly formatted.

1. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page? Yes, it is.

Specific

1. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page? Yes, it is.

1. Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL. All of the citations were formatted the same way and there is no bare URL.

1. Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that need and the need for relevant sources as a comment to the Talk page of the article. I attempted to help create some more additions on some of the topics covered. I’ve included them above.

1. If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add that need and the need for suitable captions for the image as a comment to the Talk page of the article. You could maybe add a picture or Wundt, Titchener, or Plato. I don’t think it’s really needed, though.Enlowpat (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Introspection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functionalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)