Talk:Transfer-appropriate processing

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Review

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)[reply]

Peer Review

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)[reply]