Talk:Transfer-appropriate processing

message: I forgot to add that this concept while quite influential in the 1970's has fallen to the sidelines since. Being that at one point it was quite influential, I still do believe it should be included here on Wikipedia. It still does have merit though, as it has illustrated the way how additional factors can influence memory encoding, specifically how forming connections with other information aids memory (as evidenced in the self-reference effect, where information is remembered better if it is related to the self, and retrieval cues), as well as the generation of information, and the organisation of information.
That said, this articles needs a fair bit of work, but I figured that I should at least bring some attention to it. Sorry for not writing it in a more "wiki" form, but I'm still new at this.
Mainly.generic 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *General Suggestions
**The article as a whole could use more references and citations.  
**Language and grammar problems throughout the entire article.  (I am editing as much as I can, look at history to see my changes.)
**MORE references and citations
**Structure of the contents flows well, but the structure within each section is not as smooth as it could be.
**Article needs a better concluding section in order to sum up the entirety of the article.
**Good coverage and neutrality.
*Definition section
**The lead section, definition, lacks complete clarity.  It could be beneficial to break up the definition paragraph as it seems bulky.  Perhaps, create a new heading that one could expound upon and add depth to the article.  
**The abbreviation for Transfer-Appropriate Processing appears twice in the definition section, but is never used again; either use it every time after the first, or don't reference it at all. There is a question directed at "you", which seems inappropriate for a scholarly article...rephrase or take out.
*History section
**Not appropriate history section, seems more of an attempt at a beginning to the experiments section.
**When discussing the experiments, the description of the methods weighed down the paragraph and seemed irrelevant.  The findings are most important to the topic and should be discussed with more detail.
*Examples
**Create bullets for each example...will help the flow of the article and structure of the example section.
**Does the quote need to be cited?
**Where did the guitar hero example come from?  CITE!
*Experiments
**Break up separate experiments into bullets.  This will help the flow of the article and structure of the experiments section.
**why is the history section full of examples if this section exists?  Combine or reorganize appropriately.
*Problems
**hard to understand and content does not flow.
Brandi Carolyn Hull (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: I like that the article started out with the necessary definitions. However in the definition section, there is an argument that only has one side told. I would like to see more information on the argument that suggests that the encoding process and retrieval processes are similar and also on the counterargument that isn’t mentioned. It makes the next statement confusing because the reader never sees the counterargument. This also makes it biased. Cut out “transfer-appropriate processing” and instead using TAP after the first definition. The experiments discussed in the definition section should be moved into the experiments section. Use the definition section as a type of introduction. There should be only key points and definitions to clear up any confusing or new words. Overall the structure is good, but could be improved. Breaking up the sections and adding a little more information can go a long way. The examples section is overall one that I would keep, but I don’t understand the Darwin reference and how it applies to TAP. More elaboration on that section would be useful. Finally I suggest beefing up the reference section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuesdayF (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: •	Lead: The lead for this article needs to be further condensed. My suggestion would be to move the lead to the beginning of the page (above the content table). Some of the research described in the lead could be moved to the experiments section.
•	Structure: The structure is somewhat clear. I would suggest, besides moving the lead above the content table, to switch the experiments and the examples sections. Also, the examples could be enumerated or bulleted to organize that section better. Additionally, it might be better to space out the experiments so that the section doesn’t overwhelm the reader. 
•	Balance: The article’s balance needs to be improved. Clearly, the experiment section is the largest and takes over the rest of the article. Although, it still needs to describe in more detail the methods used during research. Also, it might be a good idea to expand the other sections accordingly. For instance, the example section needs to include more than two examples. 
•	Coverage: The article needs to work on its neutrality. It mentions there is an argument concerning encoding and processing and whether or not they are similar. However, it fails to provide a detailed account for both sides of the argument.
 
•	Sources: The article has some reliable sources. However there are a few which might be questionable, I suggest looking into this.
•	Warning Banners:  The article has no warning banner.
•	Language in the lead: The only problem I find in the lead is that it is too wordy. I feel like it could be condensed and some of the language could be changed in order to explain the concept more clearly.
•	Opinions and Statements: I found an un-sourced opinion in the examples section. The comment about Guitar Hero seems to be made by the author and not found in reliable literature. Although it could be that it is just missing a citation. 
•	Unnamed groups of people: The article refers in numerous occasions to researchers as “they”. This wouldn’t be a problem if it identified their names first.  
•	Missing: There doesn’t seem to be any sections missing.
•	Section length: There are no overly long sections. The experiment section is fairly long, but it is an important section. I would suggest though, expanding some of the other sections like the history and the examples.  
•	References: The article has few references. Like I said before, references need to be added in the examples section. 
Copy-Editing Suggestions
Definition:
“Transfer-appropriate processing is a type of state-dependent memory which indicates that memory performance…”
“Also, transfer-appropriate processing is an information-processing action that occurs in two stages…”
“This means, that we stimuli are not process all at one time, but instead broken down into a series of responses.”[2]       
History:
“…completed studies that went against the idea of multi-store theories…”
“…explained that the theory of multi-store had very little evidence…”
Examples:
“This means the rabbit would excel at surviving because it has a wider range of qualities such as diet flexibility and fecundity.”
Experiments:
“…experiment done by Haline E. Schendan and Marta Kutas presents the neurophysiological evidence..”
“The individuals were placed into an air traffic control simulator.”
Problems:
“…for the fact that they seem untestable and un-falsifiable.”
JudithBrizuela 02:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review