Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language (Kyle Chambers)

Main Discuss Resources Summaries Getting help

Welcome to the talk page[edit]

This is a place where you can ask questions, talk about problems, and discuss the Wikipedia assignment with classmates and other Wikipedians.--Kechambers (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality comparison[edit]

In this section, please identify Wikipedia articles related to the Psychology of Language and evaluate their quality using the guidelines in Evaluating Wikipedia article quality. For articles that can't be considered high quality, please share what specifically needs to be improved. In addition, you can add an article topic that you found in other class resources that is not yet included in Wikipedia. As you add articles and comments, please remember your signature (4 tildes). Kechambers (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

High-quality articles[edit]

International_Phonetic_Alphabet AndFred (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augmentative and alternative communication Amf14 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speech perception Zc.annie (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet high-quality articles[edit]

Metalinguistics The lead section could use more development but it has clear structure. While there is a decent amount of references it could use more inline citations and more references. Mvanfoss (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical PerceptionIt is written more as a personal reflection rather than an encyclopedia description, and it has insufficient inline citations. TaylorDrenttel (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Taylor[reply]

Phonological_development Sub-categories are not thorough. Lkientzle (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psycholinguistics Smassaro24 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Needs additional citations and references to support information Anelso (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Anna[reply]

Language Development Lino08 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Has good information but needs more references to make it credible.[reply]

Cognitive Linguistics: This article needs more citations. TaylorDrenttel (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Taylor[reply]

Speech_production Kfinsand (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Article has few references and wealth of information needs to be expanded.[reply]

Pragmatics Needs more citations and examples. Isn't clear. Lkientzle (talk)

Syntax Not a lot in this page. Few Citations. Incomplete.Lkientzle (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon NOTHING IN THIS PAGE HARDLY!! Needs everything! Lkientzle (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheme Only has one reference. Needs more of everything! Lkientzle (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phoneme This article is not yet highly rated but is fairly easy to understand. A good overview and many examples are provided in order to define a phoneme. It could use some more references in order to improve it. Amf14 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive_neuropsychology Needs many additional categories in addition to the History and Methods sections. Also needs more references. Smassaro24 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aphasiology This article needs more research done. There is very minimal resources for this topic. Plus it also needs more information within the topic. Gmilbrat —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Motor Theory of Speech Perception This article has lots of subtopics, but they need more information under them. Lino08 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speech_signal_processing Katelyn Warburton (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Lack of references....contains several links but no information.[reply]

Reading comprehension AndFred (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC) It contains a bunch of information but it's poorly organized and arranged. It reads more like a paper than an encyclopedia article, and the grammar is weird.[reply]

Universal_grammar Controversial subject, conflicting viewpoints of authors, needs more support. Anelso (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Anna Aphasiology This article does not cite any references. It is also a lead section, and therefore, is missing topics. TaylorDrenttel (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Taylor[reply]

Word_recognition This page only includes a short summary of the topic. Needs to be expanded with more Methods of word recognition and more references. Smassaro24 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speech_Coding Katelyn Warburton (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Lack of references, lack of quality references, written like a personal essay.[reply]

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has its own Wikipedia page but without information. It generally redirects to linguistic relativity which mentions the Hypothesis. Amf14 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place_of_articulation Kfinsand (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Article has very few references.[reply]

Lexical_semantics There aren't very many references and in the talk page it seems that there is some sort of disagreement about what "lexical semantics" actually means. Hhoff12 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babbling - This article could use more in-depth information to thicken the content and is lacking references. Ahartlin (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language processing is basically a list of summaries of studies dealing with language processing. It goes into some topics but none in any real, useful detail. AndFred (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optimality Theory: This article has a poor lead section. It is too short and does not refer to any of the following sections of the article. TaylorDrenttel (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Taylor[reply]

Natural language - The initial definition in the first paragraph is hard to understand and few references are cited. Amf14 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker_diarisation Katelyn Warburton (talk) This article lacks references.

Animal language - Good comparison with animal communication, could use more information and animal examples. Amf14 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language Acquisition The article lacks references, has been called biased, and needs additional data/support on the topic. Anelso (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Anna[reply]

Speech_disorder This article lacks overall content and sub-sections, although it is linked to many others on Wikipedia. It also needs references. Smassaro24 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speech Katelyn Warburton (talk) Broad topic...needs clarification and more references. —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Baby_talk Misaacso (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Sections need more information[reply]

Speech_error Misaacso (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speech_recognition Misaacso (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Needs more in line citations.[reply]

Cultural_learning Katelyn Warburton (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Needs more information.[reply]

Code-switching Katelyn Warburton (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apraxia -needs more references Lcannaday (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive advantages to bilingualism needs to divide the second part into smaller sections, more references need in that part. c.annie (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrapping (linguistics) This article does outline the main parts of bootstrapping, including the different subsections of different types of bootstrapping but could use more citations and a section on how the overall theory of bootstrapping has real world implications.[[User:Sek12|Sek12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Missing articles[edit]

Language_development Semantic Development does not have its own page, just a paragraph in this page. Lkientzle (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin communication is not well represented on wikipedia. I suggest adding the topic as its own page or adding it to the animal communication page. Amf14 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Learning does not have its own page. When it is searched, it brings you to Machine_learning Smassaro24 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not positive what exactly the Yngve Depth Hypothesis is, but there is a lot of information provided in this textbook. It is not yet represented on wikipedia. Amf14 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syntactic Development does not have it's own page but it is a very small subtopic on another larger page, not much information is included in that section. Syntactic Development needs it's own page with much more information. Sek12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Syntactic Priming as of now does not have it's own topic page. There is a subsection in the Neurolinguistics main page that has a subsection entitled Priming but does not mention Syntactic Priming. Along with research on Syntactic Bootstrapping, Syntactic Priming does have extensive research backing it as a theory and a new main page entitle Syntactic Priming would go far to help with extending information on the topic. Sek12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Student editing[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]