User talk:Alema004/sandbox

The article did a good job providing background information which lead to their main thesis. It explained how the environment plays a critical role in a child’s learning abilities. Also explained that social support is a main contributing factor but then explained that with technology, the need of that support is not needed. “children that are exposed to media like tablets or computers can help them learn more vocabulary without social support” The last paragraph on Television is written exceptionally well. This paragraph was able to discuss how tablets and computers enrich a child’s vocabulary and encourage conversation between peers in an organized and effective manner. I would add another example of why technology is effective in enhancing their learning abilities. Providing which ages are best to use those technology based devices to help their learning abilities.The Media Assisted Learning section has several sentences in the beginning that I feel should be changed as they feel as if they are run-off sentences and could be conjoined into one. There are also a few sentences that also just sound a bit weird to read, as well as being very vague, could be grammar issues? I feel that it needs to have greater detail by maybe adding more factual statements or supporting knowledge alongside. The most important would probably be to lengthen the introduction “Language Acquisition and Technology”. A good introduction always captures a reader's attention and sets up the stage for the rest of the article. After reviewing our article and comparing it to The use of Electronic's sandbox, our article is a little more difficult to read and understand. Since we discuss various articles I think it is important to review our word order and remember the main goal is to make it easier for a reader to understand our topic. Jasmingarduno (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

rationale for moving back to sandbox
Hi, I moved your article back to your sandbox because you need to work on it some more before moving it to mainspace. Specifically, much of this content is uncited. Wikipedia needs citations for verifiability. Everything you add to Wikipedia must be cited. Your content also contains several instances of vague phrasing or what Wikipedia policy calls "weasel words." Wikipedia articles should be specific and factual. Avoid phrases such as "some research suggests" and similar phrasing. I've tagged some areas for improvement that you can work on before you consider moving it to the mainspace yet. Also, to avoid creating a content fork, consider moving this content to a new section of the page language acquisition rather than creating a new article. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * looking at this again, it appears that you don't have a lead paragraph so much as an "introduction." Please read here Manual of Style/Lead section about how the first section of a Wikipedia article should be constructed. Avoid the temptation to "draw the reader in" or "hook them". Avoid figures of speech and rhetorical questions. Writing an encyclopedia is very different from the writing style that you are likely used to&mdash;we want just the facts and only the facts. The lead should summarize the rest of the article. It should be, in effect, a synopsis of the rest of the content. Also read MOS:FIRST to understand how the first sentence of an article should be created. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)