User talk:KhylerM/sandbox

The article that you guys put together as a group is really good for the first draft. It has all of the essential information for a wikipedia article and would compliment the existing article well. One thing that I believe would be beneficial for adding to the final product would be some specifics about the types of studies that she conducted. Such as, explaining what she did to get her information in her lab but not too specific or else it would be too wordy for just an overview of her work. Everything else is good including that your work is already cited and it is correct. For my own groups article, I think that we should sort of model it after yours because it is broad enough to not be too wordy and it has all of the essential information without having to write too much and it is good for the reader as well. Reading this did not drag on like some articles do when they become too flooded with information that makes it not as interesting to read. Good luck with the final draft! Kyle ledwith (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Kyle Ledwith

Karina's Peer Review

1. The article did a good of explaining Bates contribution to the field by explaining how her research lead to the further development of how language acquisition is acquired among children. It also did a good job of providing citations where needed and will be a good contribution to the already existing article because it provides new information about her work.

2. Something I would suggest to improve the article is making sure all the external links for the existing Wikipedia article work. I tried clicking on a few like the Elizabeth Bates memorial, Bates’s CV, and publications and all of them were not found and came up as an error. Adding new ones to the updated cite would be extremely helpful for readers because they would have easy access to them.

3. The most important thing you could do to improve the article would be making sure the information flows well together.

4. Something that I noticed about your article was the use of citations which can definitely be applicable to my group’s article and help improve it by adding them where needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karina640 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Gabyxflores (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Gaby's Peer Review Gabyxflores (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC) 1) This article is very well written and is provided with plentiful evidence and information to defend their points and arguments. The work done here is a great addition to the original article and more in depth. 2) However, I believe that some of the key terms stated in the article needed a little more clarification. Some of the links did not work so it would be a good idea to dix those. 3) The studies conducted by the researcher should be given a brief explanation as to why they are important in this article. 4) Very good use of citations and understanding of the research is used in this article in which builds great credibility and my own group will use this article as an example for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabyxflores (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Novak's Peer Review

To comment on the positives: Your work is cited neatly and professionally, though I would check the link for 11, as it directs to the CSUSM library login instead of an article. Overall the quality of information is good and there is a noticeable focus on brevity rather than being excessively verbose for length's sake. Also, you've done a great job maintaining objectivity when discussing her research. In the third paragraph you did a particularly good job connecting her work to the greater field and it gave good perspective on her position as a linguist.

Some things to work on: I would review the original article on Bates to avoid repetition. Without going into specifics, I noticed a few times that information that is already present within the original article is also present here. Though some of your article does a splendid job giving putting her work in perspective of the linguistic field of research (see the third paragraph), other parts are lacking in this area. I would consider revising these parts (particularly the last paragraph) to be more consistent with the others.

I have to say, I think you've done a quite good job overall and I'll definitely be using some of the things you've done here in our groups article. For example, I don't believe we've done very well citing our sources or linking to Wikipedia articles of some of the more esoteric terms/phrases, like you have here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjnovak (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)