Talk:Jean Berko Gleason

Excruciatingly-minor-COI declaration
The subject's husband was a professor of mine long, long ago. EEng (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. Is there anyone watching with expertise in JBG's research area, who could work with me on fleshing out the description of her research?

Someone's rolled up his or her sleeves!
I'm glad to see has been adding substantive descriptions of JBG's research. However, I've left him/her a message reminding of the need for inline references, especially since this is a WP:BLP. EEng (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. Great work. EEng (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Source based on WP?
DocJ, where do you get the idea expressed in your edit summary here ? It doesn't look anything like something derived from WP. Am I missing something? EEng (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Selected publications
The selected publication list is much too long. The usual shorter list can emphasize her contributions. I've added her CV to the external links so her publications are available at a click of the mouse and archived it so it won't go away over the years. I've added her most cited publication and will cut the list down.StarryGrandma (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete entries -- this is already a subset -- but if you want to organize them into groups somehow that would be fine.  E Eng  04:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is much too long. The purpose of a selected publications list is to see how a researcher developed. This one is just a wall of text. It has articles that have been cited one or two times, book reviews, etc. A shorter list will show what she did and when she did it. I linked her CV prominently first so that all her publications could be found easily. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're trying to do, but given the subject's extensive output, over 50 years, this is a shortened list, developed with the help of experts in the field. Please propose criteria for inclusion/exclusion before going ahead with this.  E Eng  06:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was working from her impressive page on Google Scholar. With over 120 papers listing over 60 isn't a very small subset. The list as it stands seems weighted toward relatively minor things in more recent years. And each edition of a textbook doesn't need an entry. I'll put my version of the list here on the talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just start by saying what criteria you plan to apply? Again, I think the most useful thing might be to organize the current set into subsets, like book chapters vs. this vs. that. And if you really think some things should be straight-out dropped, say what the criterion would be for that.  E Eng  20:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cutting the list is a process rather that just applying criteria. I usually do this when students create a page for a professor by copying in the CV. They are thinking profile, not encyclopedia article. Basically it is go to Google Scholar (arranged by number of citations to the papers) but look at everything. Then just Google to see what else comes up. Then read any interviews, etc. to find out which of the pieces of work made the most impact. Students also usually leave out the professor's research, so I usually to add a description of the research to the article.

In the case of Gleason we already have a lovely article as well as a great profile in Google Scholar that links her publications with both her maiden and married names. She's written a lot of papers, but so have many just average researchers who haven't pioneered a new field of research. What she did is more important than how many papers it ended up in, and it helps to have a list that is short enough that readers will read it. I listened to the NOVA videos, read some interviews, read the transcript of her appearance on "On Being", looked at lots of abstracts and pdfs, looked at book chapters on Google Books, read her introductory chapter of her text on Amazon. The list below has most of the highly cited papers (mostly primary sources with the original work), most of the better known book chapters (mostly her reviews of parts of the field), and a book review that no one has cited but the title is so associated with her as a summary of issues in the field. I think I have the high points of the areas she has worked in: language acquisition, language loss, gender differences in language, and bilingual language development.

{{block indent|1=Suggested list of selected papers:

Papers

 * JSLHR Editor's Award
 * JSLHR Editor's Award
 * JSLHR Editor's Award
 * JSLHR Editor's Award

Book chapters

 * Reprinted as
 * Reprinted as

Textbooks
}} StarryGrandma (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Latest edition:
 * Latest edition:


 * Well, I'm certainly not going to try to improve on that kind of research! Great work!  E Eng  19:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I've learned fascinating things doing this sort of improvement over the years. Its one of the things that makes working on Wikipedia so enjoyable. I'll move the list into the article later today. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean Berko Gleason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714234905/http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2011/10/spotlight_the_dao_of_zib/ to http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2011/10/spotlight_the_dao_of_zib/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wug Test in lead
How is it better to introduce the bolded Wug Test in an indirect reference, rather than with a direct definition? The lead has the bolded term but does not define it whatsoever in the current version, only mentioning its results and impact. Plus, starting a paragraph with Of her... is awkward. I also don't see why you removed the wikilinks to Lise Menn and Nan Bernstein Ratner. — MarkH21talk 04:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * which used nonsensical words to demonstrate children's acquisition of and implicit knowledge of morphological rules is hardly more of a "direct definition" than is by which she demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology. At this point we're telling the reader what the test does; later we explain how it does it.
 * There's nothing awkward about starting a paragraph with Of her.
 * You added the Menn and Ratner links in a followup edit not made until after I'd opened the edit window.
 * EEng 05:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One version places Wug Test as the direct subject while the other leaves it as an indirect subject which implicitly assumes that the reader already knows what it is. Perhaps Gleason devised the Wug Test, wherein child is shown pictures with a nonsense name and then prompted to complete a statement about it. Her work on the Wug Test demonstrated... or something similar would be better? The paragraph should begin with some definition of the test though. The Of her Wug Test... is awkward, particularly because Wug Test has not mentioned yet.Then I'll add the links to Menn and Ratner back into the article text. — MarkH21talk 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but no matter how it's worded the first time the Wug Test is mentioned it will be, well, the first time it's mentioned, and I don't see how what you're proposing is superior in this regard. The bold signals that something new is being introduced. EEng 06:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was that the current version is awkward because it does not describe what the test is despite being the first time that it is mentioned, i.e. that the first mention should describe what the test is. The proposed version and the reverted versions both at least say a little about what the test is (what I meant by defining it). Otherwise, the text implicitly assumes that the reader knows what the test is since it refers to it indirectly and does not describe it. Do you think that the proposed sentence is somehow inappropriate? — MarkH21talk 06:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, Haber process opens The Haber process is an artificial nitrogen fixation process. Despite employing the word is, this doesn't tell you what the process is, only what it does; the reader finds out what the process is in the article proper. Same situation. But see what I've just done to the article. EEng 07:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The point isn't the word is, it's that there is a description of the test. I think your edit is an improvement. I think it could be further improved by either re-ordering the sentence or splitting it two sentence, e.g.
 * Gleason introduced the Wug Test, in which a child is shown pictures with nonsense names and then prompted to complete statements about them, which she used to demonstrate that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology.
 * Gleason introduced the Wug Test in which a child is shown pictures with nonsense names and then prompted to complete statements about them. Her findings from the Wug Test demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology.
 * Either makes for simpler and more direct writing. — MarkH21talk 09:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WugTest.png
 * No longer used on this page, actually. EEng 03:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WugTest.png

Wug test split
Could the Wug Test be given it's own article? I believe it could be, and then be expanded on, especially given how big it's become in linguistics pop culture (including the copyright controversy surrounding it). -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (Repeating, first, my statement elsewhere that JBG's late husband was a friend, and I am occasionally in touch with her.) The thing to do is start expanding here, then see how it goes. I suspect you're overestimating the amount of material that's both available and containing info that would really be informative for our readers. I would think at most a paragraph on inpopcult, and the same for the intellectual property dispute -- and probably less, depending on sources. We need to be especially cautious about the IP controversy, since we can't be interpreting court filings ourselves, and so much of the commentary out there is linguists, bloggers, and others not really in a position to comment intelligently about a legal dispute. "So-and-so claimed, but this-person disagrees" makes for awful reading, in general. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. A Google search for "Jean Berko Gleason" linguistics yields 16,900 results, compared to 51,400 for "wug" linguistics. Widely known in linguistics pop culture, the wug is, imvho, notable enough to warrant its own article separate from its creator. TortillaDePapas (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)