User talk:112.198.73.5/sandbox

'''LING 403 Morphology Sharifah Alattar

Wikipedia Assignment ''' Respond to the following questions—you may do so with question numbering and in sentences and paragraphs—thoughtfully and carefully composed sentences and paragraphs, but separate paragraphs. In other words, the assignment does not ask for an essay.

'''a. What is the level of importance assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that “grade?”'''

The first topic I have chosen is lexeme. The article lexeme has been rated as start-class and of start class. The rating has been such because the article requires more content is still considered incomplete. As the article is only developing, although it is written well, the referencing is rather incomplete, making the article weak in several areas.

'''b. Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address?'''

There are quite a few comments about the article as the article is only developing. The comments commonly only address one issue at a time. The issues revolve around the lack of examples, the lack of necessary explanations, and the conflict of some terms such as “lexeme” and “lexical item”.

'''c. Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it?'''

One of the issues that I picked is on the conflict between the terms “lexeme” and “lexical item”. The comments addressing this issue raises a question on what the article actually means by these terms as they seem to be used interchangeably. Lexeme has not been defined specifically as well, allowing confusion to breed among the readers as it has not been specified whether the lexeme excluded compounds or not. The question has been raised because related articles on lexical item and compounds are available and seem to contradict this article. A little clarification has been requested within the discussion.

The next issue is on the weak utilization of examples. Because of the lack of examples (that are necessary in teaching linguistics), understanding on the topic would be very difficult. Additional examples have been requested. Aside from its lack of examples, the available ones seem to be unclear as well.

There is no apparent resolution as the discussion only comprises of requests or criticisms and editing has not yet been made after the comments. Responses for the comments are unavailable, still making this article a work-in-progress.

'''d. How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others'''

There definitely is more disagreement in the discussion more than positive feedback, which is understandable given the shortness of the article and it being in the starting phase. Unlike in our readings, the article does not thoroughly describe what a lexeme is and gives little importance to examples. The article employs language that is easily understandable, making it, more or less, a good overview of the topic for beginner readers, but not appropriate for in depth study of the subject matter. Our readings and discussion give a heavier take on the topic in comparison to this start-class article on lexeme.

'''e. What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?)'''

The discussion is composed mostly of suggestions pertaining to the article that requires more development. Given that the article is only new and lacking more content, the comments are not surprising. However it is not as interactive as I have hoped it would be as although there were several comments regarding the article, there are no responses to the issues raised in the discussion. These comments were, however, useful in a sense that they provide enough recommendations to improve the quality of the article’s content if only followed immediately. Shaalattar (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)