User talk:Ah5234a

Welcome!
Hello, Ah5234a, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Allison's Peer Review for Contextualization(sociolinguistics)
Check spelling and grammar for mistakes, like in the lead paragraph it says listen instead of listeners. “Context” is used sometimes in definitions, possibly think about using synonyms since context is the root of contextualization. Check the citations (in text) because it seems some are not done in the wiki format and instead just have parenthesized dates after names. Make all the references in the correct format so they can have shortcut to from where they are used in the text. Why is (re)contextualization used? Is it different than contextualization? I think that the lead paragraph is good at understanding what it is.

I like the inclusion of examples, keep all of them formatted the same, if the conversation is indented for one example indent it for the others.

Another section I would consider adding is contextualization cues and talk more about types of cues and examples of them. Overall, it is good but could use more on how this is important in sociolinguistics, maybe more on what types of things you can learn from contextualization in language. Also fix all of the references I just looked again and the few that were cited in text the wikipedia way seem to have been removed. Anhalford (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jennyfer's Peer Review
Dear Allison,

I think your article is really good and I think you defined contextualization well! I wanted to provide some feedback on how you organized your article. I noticed that for some sections you kept your in-text citation in the parenthetical form and I think you should take those out since wikipedia has their own citation method that is also included in this article. Also I would clean up the sentence from the first paragraph that says "This may include clues to who is talking, their relationship, where the conversation is occurring, and much more." I think that the clues are useful but I would frame this sentence in a different way. I also noticed that there is an example from Bernstein in the first section and I was wondering if you've thought of moving it to the 'Examples' section. Lastly, I noticed that in the example section, the scholars are sort of name-dropped and I think it would be useful to mention why these people are important in relations to contextualization because this would provide a sense of credibility to your audience.

Best,

Jennyfer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyferjjimenez (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Olivia's Peer Review
Overall, I thought was a good informative article with relevant information. However, there were a few things that could be improved. After the example about Japan one of you sentences is "Furthermore, you can see the consistent formality in their language throughout the brief interaction." I think this needs be rephrased as it sounds more like a claim in a essay than a summary of facts in a Wikipedia article. I think that its important to be careful of the phrasing in the article. I'd also like more clarity on the Bernstein article, like what does it mean by recontextualization? Is it just reframing research to go in a textbook rather than a journal? I also think that it would be interesting if you could include information about when and how this became a topic in sociolinguistics if you find any sources about that. Good job so far! Olivemich98 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Consistent references
Hello, Ah5234a. Thank you for all the good work you are doing at Contextualization (sociolinguistics).

I wanted to mention that general practice on Wikipedia is to keep reference styles consistent within an article. Either parenthetical references or footnotes are acceptable, but within one article all the references should be the same type. If an article already uses one style, new references typically continue using that style. (It's also possible to change all of the references to a new style, but that usually happens after a discussion on the article's talk page.)

Since 'Contextualization (sociolinguistics)' had parenthetical references, I made your new references parenthetical to keep the style consistent. It looks like you've changed them back to footnotes. Again, either style would be acceptable, but its best to keep the page consistent. Use parenthesis in text with a list of works cited or use footnotes for each reference in the article.

There is more (maybe too much more!) information at Citing sources. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)