User talk:A42nato/sandbox

Critique - Sydney Weigert

One of the positive aspects of this article, which I can note right off the bat, is that it takes into account very much its potential/intended audience. I feel that the language used in the introductory paragraph is very direct and simple, which is good not only to grab the reader’s attention, but also to make sure that each person is being accounted for, regardless of his or her previous knowledge of this subject. With that being said, the V_XP usage could be slightly unclear for introductory learners – there could be some clarification of exactly what that means. The final sentence in the introductory paragraph is great, because it opens up to the rest of the article and keeps the order clear in the reader’s head. Moving on to the History section, I feel as if it could be expanded a little bit more, just to make sure that everything is explained fully. Personally, reading over this particular sentence “Their research in cross-linguistic influence concluded that influence in bilinguals would occur in areas of particular difficulty for even monolinguals, and they examined the overlap between two language systems” was a little bit difficult - it took me a few times of reading over it to fully understand what it was talking about – maybe the language/structure of the paragraph could be cleared up a little bit. In terms of the Subtopics, I really like the way in which the article is divided. It is clear that the following headings are all different areas of equal importance as they relate to the overarching topic of cross-linguistic influence. Furthermore, I find the topics to be well balanced. Each subheading is of equal length, more or less, which seems to be important in terms of addressing each subject as fully as possible. If I had to criticize anything about the headings, I would say that it would maybe be beneficial to rename the “conclusion” heading, because this makes it sound more like what you would find in an academic essay. Something like “further research” or reference to what could be done in the future to gain more knowledge of the topic could be more relevant to the type of article that this is, BUT this is more of a nuanced observation and not extremely important on the grand scheme. While reading the article, something I find beneficial is the usage of specific examples of each subtopic to illustrate exactly what each one means. I definitely like how under the sub-heading “Interference”, Justin provided a specific example of what interference could look like with Spanish and English to give a literal image in our heads. Overall, I think the article does a really good job with laying out the basics of cross-linguistic influence for those readers who do not know much about it. It is accessible for the most part, and very concise. My only critiques are the ones I mentioned above, and maybe that there could be a little but more information added to fill up the article slightly further, such as more references or explanation at certain points. Besides that, I think it’s a great first draft! Sydneyweigert (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Critique - Leah Hinshaw

This article does an excellent job delving into different components of the topic in a concise manner. Additionally, the different sections are very clearly deliberately made to flow together, which is nice. General criticisms would include that examples would be helpful when explaining and/or defining things. Additionally, I know this is a draft, but editing each others sections for grammar and punctuation may help clarify some confusing things. I really like the structure of the article; I think the grouping together of things under the heading of “subtopics” makes it easy to understand how they relate to each other and to Crosslinguistic influence. The article is largely well balanced. The history section is about the same length as each of the subtopics, but I feel like it could stand to be expanded a little bit because history is a broad category. I also think that something like "topics to be explored" might be a better title for the section currently titled "conclusion. I did not spot any issues with bias, and the assertions seemed well-cited.

I think the opening may be a bit inaccessible to non-linguists, but this could be fixed by explaining the syntactic structures/notation used. Also, I do not understand what the sentence “It had to come from the English influence on the German because V_XP is the only grammatical syntactic structure used in English” really means; is it supposed to say that it is a grammatical syntactic structure only used in English? I think the juxtaposition of language transfer and interference is really helpful. I find the bullets under the Language Transfer Debate in the Interference section to be a little confusing, but I think some grammatical/formatting editing would fix a lot of it. For example, I would pluralize “behaviorist” and “minimalist,” take out the semi-colon in the first bullet and delete the comma after “minimalist.” Additionally, the way additional views are tacked onto the end of both bullets is a little confusing, so maybe expand on those or clarify the distinction more. I think the attrition section is good and easy to understand. Maybe expand on the notion that language transfer is the direct cause of attrition just for clarification about how this works. In the Avoidance section, under “Causes,” are they supposed to say L2 learners? I just did not really understand those bullets. Finally, an example of a phrasal verb would be great. Those were more persnickety criticisms, but I think they will help!

Overall, I think you all have done a wonderful job communicating and coordinating your article to construct a great product. Leahgray (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Critique - Taylor Petroski

This article was overall well-organized, easy to read and had an interesting topic! As a whole, the article does a great job at being understandable to the “non-linguist.” Each section has the terminology explained first thing in basic terms, making everything easy to follow! One critique would be in the opening where you use “V_XP syntactic structure” because I think this is a time where a little more explaining would be useful to the non-linguistics major. However, having the brief example in the opening is a great idea and I would definitely keep it! I could easily follow the structure of the article and how you have arranged the subtopics. Having a basic description of the term with some supporting details and an example is a good way to explain what is needed. My suggestions would be changing the last “Conclusion” heading because that section seemed to only talk about further research. Titling this “Further Research” would seem fine to me. Also, I would make sure each subtopic has one clear, specific example of the term being discussed. I know that some of these topics are explained in enough detail that a reader should be able to pick up on the idea (such as in avoidance), but I still think having one specific example would be beneficial to the readers. This would also help the structure since most sections have that one specific example.

As for the balance, I think the coverage was done equally and I found the length of each section to be not too long or too short, but just the right amount of information needed. I did not find any bias issues and the citations all seemed reliable!

Some last specific things I noted were in the history section, the use of “crosslinguistic hypothesis” might be better if renamed. CLI was not referred to in this way in the lead section or earlier in the article, so rewording this might help for clarity. The “Interference” and “Avoidance” sections are structured in a way that I personally like since I use bullet lists for almost everything, but since the other sections do not use bullets, I would suggest cleaning this up. I understand that posting these in the sandboxes adjusted some formatting and that this is also a draft, but just wanted to point it out for the final! Some sections just need a double checking for grammar and punctuation, which I know will get looked at with more editing! One last suggestion I have is not a critique, but just an idea for the use of examples in your article. Something I did was bold/italicize where I used short phrases/sentences in different languages to explain my point within the example. I liked this technique because I felt like it helped make the main point of the section stand out from the basic paragraph form to demonstrate what it really means. Also, it gives the reader a break from the same paragraph structure used throughout the article. Overall, great work and I can’t wait to read the final! Taypetro (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)taypetro

Critique - Natalie Protz

The organization of this article is overall very good. Everything is evenly spaced and it flows very well, in a way that is both logical and visually appealing. I am curious about why there are examples given in the section lead; I like the German but the sentence structure may be a little too in-depth to be in the beginning of this article. At the least it should be explained a little bit more. Another thing I noticed that could be changed is that the farther down you read the less and less the article appears to have anything to do with transfer. Everything flows together well, but I found myself trying to relate each section back to transfer and sometimes it wasn't entirely clear. The Avoidance section in particular but also the sections after it could be fleshed out a little and maybe more that ties it back to transfer could be added, but the information that is included there is quite good. The example from English to Spanish really helps readers understand transfer but maybe it could be explained a little bit more, like with English literal translation for those who can't understand Spanish as well? It might be helpful to add examples in other sections as well. I also like the inclusion of the additional theories section especially--I wish some of it could be expanded, but then I realize that would make for a long article and would require additional sections or subsections. Other than these couple changes and some formatting issues (this is a draft, after all!) this is a good, solid article! Natprotz (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Critique- Betsy Gorman

The lead section is a fairly good introduction and provides a good overview of what the entire article will discuss. The German-English syntax example could be explained a bit more directly, because a reader who is unfamiliar with linguistics and syntax might not know what an XP is. I was slightly confused that CLI either a monolingual or bilingual speaker, but I assume it is referring to influence on language overall, so maybe this could also be explained more, too. The structure of the article is useful because providing a brief history before discussing contemporary theories allows the reader more background knowledge and allows him/her to see how the current ideas contrast with the original ones. The Transfer subtopic is good and clear, although it seems as if most information comes from one source, so more information confirming those ideas might be a good idea. Additionally, I'm not sure it's necessary to have the "English to Spanish" errors as a subsection under Interference; it may be better explained using a few sentences following the initial definition of interference in order to provide the reader with an example. I also think that in this section, because Critical Analysis seems to be so important in the debate about Interference, it should be discussed in a little more depth. I like the way that language attrition is so simply defined; it is concise and helpful for the readers. The Avoidance subtopic could be reduced so that there are not subsections, which would make the article flow more smoothly. The Complementarity Principle and the additional principles are explained very well. The Complementarity Principle is explained in such depth that if there is more information available about the additional principles, it might be good to include it in order to provide balanced coverage. Overall, the article is very informative while also maintaining neutrality. Citations are missing from many sections, so that should be fixed. Good job!

Betsygorman (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Betsygorman