User:LatifaAiantola/sandbox

PUBLIC SPEAKING "For example, speeches about concepts do not necessarily have to be structured in any special way. However, there is a method behind giving it effectively. For this type of speech it would be good to describe that concept with examples that can relate to the audiences life. [2]"

FOR EXAMPLE This part of the paragraph concerns me very much. It does not define a term. For the opposite, it makes me feel to do not trust this source because it was written with not a literate person. The words " it would be good..." usually are avoided in the articles, the mission of which is to inform the reader. It looks like this paragraph was written by a writer of a textbook for students but not to inform and give a definition. The first part of the term should be just a strict definition of it without side-facts or examples.

To add, looking from the grammatical point of view, from the part " For this type of speech it would be good..." after the word "speech" must be followed by a comma.

To sum up, this article needs a little bit of correction in the area of the style of writing. I understand that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but to develop and make it better we need to refine it to be able to give people and next generations true information in the right way and format.

Aiantola Latifa Professor Megan Tomei-Jameson SPC 1017 For Honors September 24, 2018 (3:11 АМ) Analyze of the Article After reading an article about "Face (in sociological concept)" on the Wikipedia page, I end up with some conclusions about the condition of this specific article. The first thing that I want to admit is that there are only two links with the references that were used as a variable verified source of the information that was used for creating this article. Most f the references are old and need an update information, statements, and facts. My second opinion about this article changes is to switch the chapter about "by country definitions" and "academic interpretations" places because there is a lot of not relevant history and information about this topic that just not that necessary to mention at the beginning of the article. It has more philosophical subtext. My next opinion about this article is to filter an information in the definition sections about the "face" where it is mentioned synonyms of this word and language abilities of how to use a specific word in another languages and cultures mentioning hieroglyphics or other words and symbols of the language of specific culture usage. It is more look like a reader learning Chinese language instead of reading an information about what the face is. A lot of irrelevant information and losing the main idea of this page.