User talk:Averyfieldx/sandbox

Peer Review
1. I think the plan on how to improve the article is laid out nicely. Adding more information on the history of speech acts will be helpful in comparing and contrasting speech acts, especially in a judicial setting. I also like how you plan to connect this Wiki page to topics of pragmatics. I think this will give the reader an extended view on information the original author did not consider. I am excited to read your additions to this Wiki page, and to see the new examples and research you come up with. 2. I would recommend adding to the sections "In language development" and "Rules." These sections are lacking in information that I feel can be expanded on to present the reader with even more knowledge. For example, under "Rules," I suggest taking the extra step to define "constitutive" and "regulative" rules. I would also add a section explaining locutionary and perlocutionary speech acts, as the original author only detailed illocutionary speech acts. I think this will help round out that section of the page. 3. You are off to a great start. It is clear you have some great ideas to improve this article. In addition to your plan and my suggestion, I think it will be important to organize this Wiki page. There is an abundance of information, but I think rearranging, combining, and changing the Content "headlines" will make this page flow better and be easier to read.

Keep up the good work! Jazz Davis (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Haejin
1) I think the foundations for the proposal portion of this article was laid out well. It was helpful that you pointed out the areas in which you wanted to include more information on such as recent discoveries in the "History" section as well as your desire in expanding the political science section. I also thought it was interesting to see that you are approaching the article of speech acts with prior information on the topic. This will prove to be beneficial when debating whether or not a certain piece of evidence could improve or hinder your topic.

2) Something I would suggest that could improve the article is its overall flow. I feel that the sections that provide the actual usage of speech acts in daily life (computer science, political science, finance) could be formatted in a different way. In this case, I don't think that the information amount is as vital as how these sections are formatted. What I mean by that is, even if the information is good, nothing about the sections really stand out to me. Something like splitting up the run-on paragraph into example sections may prove beneficial!

3) Overall, I do believe that you have a lot of ideas on areas to improve on for this article. For now, I think the most important thing you could do to improve the article is to include all of the information you mentioned in your proposal. Adding your insight of speech acts may also be good, but be weary of any phrases that may sound like an opinion rather than facts.

Either way, it was interesting to come onto someone else's article like this. Hope it comes out well!

Elluel (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)