Hi Paula, Thanks for the suggestions for possible pages to work on. I am really interested in doing the speech production page. I can see how brief it is and how some of the theories we have examined could add to the content. Otherwise I'd be happy to work with the others on the receptive aphasia page on citations with the others if you would prefer us to work in groups.Amandafoort (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2

Hi Paula, I have found a few articles (some from your list, some not) that would be good for some smaller editing as well as larger revisions. I am leaning towards the Draw-a-Person test, it interests me and isn't terribly intimidating. Adding more to the validity as well as some theory behind it would be a good start I think. Let me know your thoughts - Thanks! Scout37 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marentette for the suggestion about leaving feedback on others' talk pages rather than my own! Glorytohypnotoad (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marentette for the suggestions. The Second-language acquisition page does interest me. Would I primarily expand upon what is there? Other than that, the speech production page also interests me. Beccabouma (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for me

Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Grading tools

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

for students:
Places to look for editing work, general familiarity, copyediting work, adding references: WikiProject Psychology has a box that includes a link to Psychology pages that need cleanup and copyediting.

Places to look for page ideas:

1. talk to me
2. WikiProject Psychology has a box that identifies stub and start class articles. It will also give you links to Good Articles and Feature Articles in psychology that you can use as examples.
3. WikiProject Linguistics also has a box that identifies the status of articles. It may be more relevant as all the pages are related to language (though they won't all be also related to psychology. Thanks CRHeck! Marentette (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/Archive 2

As a student in the Summer Seminar (2015) I am considering editing the following pages

• Developmental Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Gesture
  

These are not the kind of pages that I would encourage a student to revise. So far, I find them troublesome for a variety of reasons. Gesture and Developmental Psychology for example have been substantially improved but all the warnings still remain. That is a first impression, but I'm wondering what it takes to move articles out of start class. Marentette (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marentette, I am also participating in the Summer Seminar and looked at the Cognitive Psychology page. I haven't reviewed all of the comments on the talk page yet, but it looks like it needs some work. I also wonder what the process is for moving beyond start class. I am very new to Wikipedia so appreciate your willingness to help us newbies! Alexpkin (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we'll talk more about it, one thing to bear in mind with page ratings is that they are often badly out of date. A page may have been rated as "Start" class by someone months or even years ago, and even though the article was improved since then, no one has stopped by to re-rate the page.

People (and by "people" I mean me) also often use Start class as a 'lazy' rating; if you don't know enough about a topic to really judge its completeness, or if you simply want to tag a page without investing the time it takes to really assess it, Start class is a safe bet. You can visually tell the difference between Stub and 'more than Stub', and that's all you're going to bother to do. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to work on the Gesture page. I would benefit from a better understanding of the citing process. 142.244.28.12 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Abecedarium - one could add to this page by examining current children's alphabet picture books - maybe
• Receptive aphasia -needs citations, this could be perfect. Msuvanto and Clfergus are hovering around this one I think.
• Speech production is shockingly brief - and that is what we are studying right now. The page also lists speech production disorders which could be worth exploring.
• there is no page for acquired alexia (losing the ability to read) - this deserved exploration - perhaps it has been collapsed into Dyslexia in the past, and you need to know that before you go inventing the page, but it seems like a gap to me.
• Baby sign language - this one is a humdinger and may be up for edit war but it absolutely needs citations which are out there.
• Second-language acquisition - this might appeal to Beccabouma and Mr. Stradivarius hangs out there and that editor is very supportive. This might be a better choice than the ESL page, as in my mind it isn't clear what to do with that.

We plan to work on:

Second-language acquisition#Age

Critical period hypothesis

Interlanguage

CRHeck (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paula,

The annotated bibliography that we will be using to present a neutral viewpoint on baby sign is in Tulsa's sandbox.

Thank you! Sarah.Monk (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marentette. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]