User talk:Mr0960a
| This user is a student editor in American_University/Language_and_Human_Experience_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Mr0960a, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Rosetta Barnstar |
| For improving the linguistics stub at Constructed action and dialogue, here's the Rosetta barnstar. I was really excited to see that article getting some attention, so thanks for the wonderful contribution! Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC) |
Peer Review for Class[edit]
Lead: the introduction to this article was very well written. It gave us a generalized definition of the two terms, but also included some additional information that helped better understand the term and allowed us to predict what the rest of the article would be about.
Structure: as a result of there only being two subsections for this article, the structure was very clear cut. Also, the way in which the two terms were described was identical in its structure. You first defined the term and gave it's significance and then you included a solid example to cement the definition. this was very well done.
Balance coverage: this is a common problem with many articles, especially those that contain only two similar terms that need to be described individually. In this article, it is clear that the former term received more attention than the latter, but I do not blame you for doing this because they are very similar in their objective. One advice that I would give to you is that you can add more examples for the second one and not just focus on sign language. This would help by allowing you to include more information and also, it will help in making it more relatable.
Neutral Content: no comment because this article has no possibility of having a bias component
Reliable sources: the sources that the article used ranged from academic journals to scholarly articles. From this I can assume that the sources are very reliable.
Overall, Nice Read!
T.rabjam12 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review[edit]
1. The first thing I wonder about is capitalization within the title of the article. Should it be Constructed Action and Dialogue, I am not sure myself but it may be something to look into in your further research and editing of this article. Further, I wonder if the title should be "Constructed Action and Constructed Dialogue" as it is in the lead section.
2. "Metzger defines them..." This excerpt is present in the lead section and I don't believe there is any explanation as to who that person is. I if you could maybe explicate a bit on who Metzger is and how they are connected to this topic I think that would be a great addition to this article.
3. The lead very clearly and concisely explains a difficult topic so nice job on that!
4. "Liddell gives the example of...": Within the "Constructed Action" section there is another example of a sort of name drop, where you reference a source but someone who is not familiar with the topic might need more explanation of who the source is and how they are connected.
5. The section on "Constructed Action" is really lengthy and detailed in a lovely way, I wonder if the section on "Constructed Dialogue" might have the same amount of detail or if it is less important or doesn't need as much explaining and should be left as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc1058b (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Review Responses[edit]
I am glad to hear that the lead went well and thatn the article was overall enjoyed!
To address the more specific questions asked I will go in order of when the reviews were posted.
First Post:
Balance Coverage: The research that I was easily able to find for this topic was mainly about constructed action and it's uses in ASL, so I grabbed some of the more pertinent articles and did my best to apply them. Aftewr some more digging I found one source for Constructed dialogue that I enjoyed and implimented it into the article. While there is still not nearly as much info in this section, it is a start and hopefully more helpful or descriptive research will come about.
Second Post:
The capitalization seems to not be present in the researchg that I have done, so I will leave it as it is. As for the Metzger refference as well as the Lindell one, I left them alone since there was a source attached to each of them in the article and I was not quite comfortable enough to reshape everything about this article.
As for the Constructed Diualogue section needing more information: I agree. I added a few more sentences giving a wider array of usage to the term, but I was having a harder time finding research to go more in depth for the term that had not already been covered. So I am hoping that more research in time will come about to give a better contribution to this wiki page.
Overall, thank you very much for your comments, and I hope that the changes in a bit more content are of some help in bringing the article together!