User talk:Mckenzie.l.mann/sandbox

Lead Section Critiques

Jadey:

Jadey, I like how your lead section is simple and down to the point. It defines the topic, explains why the topic is notable, and can stand alone as a concise overview. However, I'm not sure if you summarized the most important points for the Boston Process Approach. Great job otherwise! PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah, clear and concise was a good choice. I especially like how you mention a specific test within the approach, that should be helpful for future readers. If we keep that, we should find out if there is a page for that test, if so we should link them, if not, we should elaborate on it in a sub section of the article. Well done. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Jadey, I really liked your lead paragraph. I thought you summed it up really well, and didn't go into too much information about a certain aspect of the approach. I also thought that you had defined the basic idea of the approach well also. If I had to add one criticism, it would be to add a little more info to make the lead paragraph a bit longer, otherwise good job! Emilee.andersen (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarah: I think you did a really good job synthesizing the article and providing the criteria needed for this section. It seemed like there may have been a word or two that could've been changed, but other than that my only critique is that you did not use many citations; specifically in the tail end of your lead where some of the claims could use the backing up, otherwise it comes off as an opinion. I believe we both used a sentence towards our ends that were from the original article, and that article did not have a reference for the statement, so we will need to dig for evidence of that belief. I think it's important to use references in the lead to establish the authority of what is being written, and also so readers can refer to that information if they need. Otherwise, great job. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought you did a good job of explaining the process of going through this approach as well as what the critiques of this approach were. However, I thought some of it was a little too detailed for the lead section because to my knowledge the lead section is supposed to be kind of an overview of the topic. I think the detailed process would be better suited for the administration section of the article. My one critique (that Mckenzie mentioned already) is that you didn't use any citations, which is always a must! Overall, great job! JadeyKappes (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, I think you did a really good job explaining the approach, however in your definition, I'm not sure if the approach is used to strengthen a skill, but rather used to assess the skill. I also thought your lead paragraph could use a little more generalization, I think that it may cover too much about how the approach is accomplished. I feel like a lot of that info could go into the section that talks about how the test is done. Otherwise, I think your lead is really good!Emilee.andersen (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Emilee:

I thought you did a good job of introducing what the Boston Process Approach was/purpose and who it was founded by. I also liked that you included where it was developed as I hadn't thought to include that in the lead section I wrote. My one critique is that you put a citation right in the middle of the third sentence and I am not sure if that is a correct way to format in-text citations. Otherwise, I thought you did a great job! JadeyKappes (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Emilee, I liked how detailed and thorough you were when discussing each section of the Boston Process Approach. You summarized the main points well, established context, and explained the notability of our topic. The only thing I'm questioning is whether or not there should be more detail on some of the prominent controversies. Other than that, you did very well! PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your lead section was really well put together, however, I found it to be too similar to the original lead in it's current form. I think the information is mostly important, although it may have a little "fluff" in there. I thought the structure of the paragraph was good though. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

McKenzie:

I thought you did a good job of summarizing what the Boston Process Approach was and I liked how you kept it simple and easy to understand. I also liked how you explained the reason for why the approach may not have the best external validity. Great job! JadeyKappes (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

McKenzie, I liked how summarized this and made it easy to follow. You defined the topic, established context, and mentioned prominent controversies. However, I think the notability of the Boston process approach needs to be made clearer in the first few sentences. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

McKenzie, I like how you explained the topic and covered a good amount of the approach. I do think that a lot of your lead paragraph is focused on the procedure of the approach, however. I think if that part was elaborated a little less, and put into a section elsewhere it would give the lead paragraph a better generalization of the topic. Otherwise, I think it looks good!Emilee.andersen (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you guys think about the qualitative analysis section and interpretation section being fused together? I almost think that the content used in the qualitative analysis section could be used as an example in the interpretation section to explain how a certain assessment technique works from the BPA perspective. Let me know what you guys think, as I am working on the interpretation section. Thanks.Emilee.andersen (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Or at least an example of how the BPA is used can go into the administration section? Emilee.andersen (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

@Mckenzie.l.mann, Emilee.andersen, PsychMajorFall19, and JadeyKappes: Nice work. A few things that you could improve

• You need inline references. Right now you only have numbers, and I'm not clear what they correspond to. If you aren’t sure how to do this, please revisit the section of the training module beginning on this page.
• You need to add links to other Wikipedia articles. Topics and terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be linked the first time they appear in the article.
• The "Modifications" section is a little unreadable. A long list of modifications without explanation are very difficult to read, and don't provide the reader with any useful information. Explanatory paragraphs are best, but if you're going to leave it like this, I recommend turning it into a list of bullet points. But that's really only useful if you link to articles about these modified tests.
• Make sure your tense is consistent. The "Administration" section speaks about what the neuropsychologist will do. That isn't the right tone for an encyclopedia article. Describe what people do, not what they will do.
• "Patients" is a term that specialists use when writing for other specialists. It creates distance that isn't helpful in an article aimed at general readers. Try "people" where it fits, and other similar terms if that word doesn't fit. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)