User talk:Katie.anderson.5/sandbox
Comments on Council's Comments - Part of Assignment 9
edit1. The lead is too long and detailed. It should be a concise summary of the main article that follows. Many of the specific details in your lead should be moved to the main article.
I've added parts from the lead section into the Reproducibility Project heading. There were statistics in the lead that belonged in a different place. Katie.anderson.5 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Writing needs to be proofread and polished up. Needs to be properly formatted as a Wikipedia article.
I have also made an effort to proofread to ensure high quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie.anderson.5 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Katie's Assignment 4
edit1. I think something that should be added is the statistical reasons to why the researchers could be publishing unreplicable things, such as false positives.
2. Patil, P., Peng, R.D., Leek, J.T. (2016). What should researchers expect when they replicate studies? A statistical view of replicability in psychological science. Association for Psychological Science, 11, 539-544.
Nosek, B.A. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Association for Psychological Science, 7, 657-660.
3. Should there be a little info box about when the project was initiated and by who for easier access? Should there more people stated for not being able to reproduce studies. Katie.anderson.5 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Justin's Sources
edithttps://centerforopenscience.org/about_mission/
https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/?_ga=1.200969006.1683876861.1478576075
New
edithttp://pps.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/content/7/6/657.full
http://pps.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/content/11/4/539.full
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.a.arp (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)