User talk:Klausfaust/sandbox

Peer Edit!

Your draft is concise and neutral in tone, and it was very easy for me to follow what you were saying. I'm confused as to why your first two sources are marked at 31 and 32, did you take those from the original wikipedia article that you're editing? My main suggestion for you is to expand some of the aspects that you're writing about. Since you mentioned the motor theory of attention, explaining that in more detail would help the reader understand more about change blindness and why this theory is important. Also, expanding on the three methods for limiting change blindness, and further explaining why the second and third countermeasures are more effective, will give your reader a more rounded understanding of what you're talking about and why it's important. Mawalters (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters

Peer Edit (Part 2)

I agree with much of what Mary has said. The concision of your tone is definitely what Wikipedia wants to see. One of the things that I think you could do to avoid needing to write any more (say like explaining the motor theory of attention) is to change topics like that into the hyperlinks that bring you to another wiki page. Overall, however, I think this draft is well on it's way toward being ready for publication. Well done! Mitchlosito (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)