User:Natnicmo/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * The name of the article that I chose to evaluate is "Cooperative principle:.
 * The first thing that I noticed was that this article was flagged for possibly containing original research. This is most likely referring to the section titled "Obeying the cooperative principle", which does not contain any references for the information provided.
 * Another thing that stood out to me about the article was the organization and formatting.
 * The very first paragraph, which should be a clear overview of the topic, contains good information on the topic but to me seems a bit overloaded by including a quote which also first introduces Paul Grice. While the information included in this first section does provide an overview, it could be more clearly laid out to introduce the topic - possibly with better sentence structure and/or organization of ideas.
 * Under the heading "Grice's maxims", where the 4 maxims are laid out, the formatting is inconsistent. While this may seem like a minor detail, it could ultimately cause confusion to the reader. The subheadings "supermaxim" and "submaxim" do not exist for all maxims, but the italics/numbering should remain consistent for clarity.
 * Referring again to organization, the article does not flow as well as it could from section to section, and could be better organized. For example, in the section titled "Explanation", the idea of implicature and "flouting" the maxims is introduced toward the end, which could nicely lead into the section titled "Flouting the maxims". Instead, the section titled "Criticism" separates the two.
 * The references overall seem to be credible and relevant sources, though I am confused by the "References" and then separate "Bibliography" section...though this could just be the way that Wikipedia is generally organized? (I may need to refer back to the intro/training modules)
 * Finally, the information under the header "Obeying the cooperative principle" is very brief and, as previously mentioned, is missing references. This section could definitely be expanded and elaborated on.
 * One thing that I think the article does well is that it maintains a neutral point of view. The Gricean maxims are presented and explained, in addition to a section on criticism toward Grice's maxims. I do not see any heavy bias one way or the other.
 * The article is a part of two WikiProjects: WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Linguistics. Under both of these projects, it is rated as C-Class quality and Low-Mid importance.
 * The "Talk" page includes some great discussion of points for improvement on this article. I have posted some suggestions for improvement on the "Talk" page, as well as a question about including different ways of interacting with the maxims. I also edited for some of the minor formatting issues on the page.

Contributions to "Interjection" page
Link to Alena's sandbox

Working together with my group members, Alena and Cristina, I plan to contribute to the "Interjection" page by adding to the following:
 * I plan on expanding on the section "Distinctions"; in particular, briefly clarifying the distinction between interjections and onomatopoeia.
 * I also plan to expand on the meaning/use of interjections, discussing both semantic and pragmatic aspects. In particular, I would like to discuss interjections as deictics (in simpler terms, discussing their dependence on context).
 * In relation to meaning, it also might be interesting to add a section or subsection on interjections in relation to emotion/expressivity.
 * For my contributions, I will be drawing on information from the following sources (some of which, have already been listed on this page):
 * Goddard, C. (2014). Interjections and emotion (with special reference to “surprise” and “disgust”). Emotion Review, 6(1), 53-63
 * Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of pragmatics, 41(5), 866-891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005
 * Riemer, N. (2014). Comment: Interjections and expressivity. Emotion Review, 6(1), 64-65.
 * Wierzbicka, A. (1992). The semantics of interjection. Journal of pragmatics, 18(2-3), 159-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90050-L
 * Wilkins, D. P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2-3), 119-158.

Peer Review: International Corpus of English
User talk:KalenTheGreat/sandbox

As suggested by KalenTheGreat, there is definitely some room for improvement on this article. From what I can tell, it seems that KalenTheGreat has already made some contributions to the actual article, particularly in the section titled "Description". However, I wasn't able to find a full draft of the article with contributions from all group members.

I think that overall, the article is divided into appropriate and relevant sections, although some sub-sections might be helpful for further organization (this is something that my group and I decided to do for our own article, as one of our sections became quite lengthy). I noticed some potential overlap between the "History" and "Description" sections -- for example, mention of the father of the project, Sidney Greenbaum, might be appropriate to the "History" section. Also, while the "History" section contains some great information about the work that is being done on the ICE at present, I believe this section would be better focused on description of the initial stages and development of the ICE over the years, leading into present work (this "Present Work" could even be a separate section or sub-section). Otherwise, this information might fit more appropriately in the "Description" section, as it certainly does describe the corpus work.

Under the "Description" section, I also found that mention of the British Component of the ICE in particular should maybe be a sub-section, as it is more specific and not a part of the overall description of the corpus. I am not really familiar with the ICE, so this may be a very prominent component and thus relevant here. If this is simply meant to point out the inclusion of part-of-speech tagging and parsing, perhaps this could be introduced more generally -- currently, the sentence puts the focus on the British Component and doesn't seem to flow from the previous paragraph. (Again, this might be easily fixed by making this a sub-section in the "Description" section.)

Finally, I really like the clear organization of the section titled "Design of the Corpora" -- it very nicely breaks down the subsections and categories. Overall, I think that this article is off to a great start, drawing from relevant and credible sources! Natnicmo (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)