User:Magraaay/sandbox

Heading
bold bold bold

This is some test text. different kinds of text.

This is a cite test.

Article Critique

 * What is the "grade," if any, that the article has.  What is its indicated importance?
 * I would give the article on Holonymy about a "C" or "B". While the information is good as a base, it doesn't organize the information in a way that shows flow of thought. That, coupled with the fact that the information seems to closely match the original source, makes me feel that the lower grade would be more appropriate.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Not everything seems to be properly referenced, although it is stated within the article that the information comes from the source. Everything in the article is relevant, but again it is rather unorganized and jumbled.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is definitely neutral. I can tell that the author was trying to give just the facts, and no kind of prescriptivism or any other kind of bias is shown.
 * Where does the information come from? Do these seem to be neutral sources? Choose three sources cited, and find them yourself.
 * The information comes from a single source. It comes from a book on semantics and is neutral. It seems to have good information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  If your answer is "yes," (a) indicate what viewpoint(s) you think might qualify as overrepresented,  and (b) what viewpoint you think might be underrepresented.  What leads you to this conclusion?
 * There are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented because this is such a small article (a stub).
 * Check four citations. Do the links work?  Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
 * Again, there is only one citation, but it includes 3 different resources. This is most likely an error because, while the first resource does have to do with holonymy, the following two resources do not. It looks as if there might be some very slight close paraphrasing. Plus, the citing is marked half way through the article even though the original author of the article clearly says that they are still getting information from the same source.
 * Select and list up to three major topics or issues raised about the article from the Talk page related to the article.   Do you agree with what the contributors say, or not?  Why?
 * The Talk page is another part of the article that is sparse. There were only two other posts before mine. The first user states that holonymy should not be listed under morphology, but should instead be listed under semantics. I agree because their reasoning was solid. Holonymy is a semantic relationship. The holonym itself would be the morphological part. The next user states that the article is extremely lacking in references, which I also agree with. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to find information on the topic of holonymy or even its counterpart meronymy.

Additional/Edited Sentences

 * 'Holonymy' is the relationship between the two parts, while the 'holonym' itself is the "parent" of the relationship.
 * I might want to elaborate on this to show that the two are slightly different. One is the relationship and the other is what is in the relationship.
 * Change the original sentence "Holonymy is the opposite of meronymy." to something like: The holonym is the main part of the semantic relationship in holonymy. In contrast, in meronymy the main part is the meronym. Holonymy broadens to show the holonym's relation to its parts, while meronymy narrows to show the meronym's relation to its whole.
 * This could help further explain the difference between the relationship and the part, and instead of stating simply that 'meronymy' is the opposite, I can give the explanation and maybe some examples so it is better understood.
 * The typographical symbols to represent the holonymy relationship is: X > Y   where X is the holonym and Y is the meronym
 * I could add this toward the beginning and examples that come after (like the examples currently in the article) could follow this lead of typography, making it easier to understand.