User talk:Bansalk/sandbox

Hey Lindsay and Kavi, Great job with your article! Below please find some areas that were really strong within your edits. 3 strengths: -The “Definition and Comparison of the terms” section is a solid section that provides much needed detail for a better understanding of the terms. -Good overall structure of the article with the brief description, history, comparison and definition of terms, and then the example of studies after. -Great detail when explaining studies - you provide a lot of concrete information. Brookemarkt (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

3 areas of improvement: - “Why is It important” section is confusing- The first sentence seems incomplete and the punctuation in the second sentence is off. Third sentence gets redundant.

- define emic and etic in the same paragraph before getting into everything else. The beginning of the article only has the definition of emic and then dives into history, etc. since both are the topic of the article, both should be defined right away. The definition section comes at the end, but should probably be first.

- the example with the F-scale doesn’t make a lot of sense. How is authoritarian personality related to racism? Also, consider what exactly using the same test cross-culturally means… it isn’t necessarily the failings of emic and etic approaches that are the salient issue, but that tests need to considered emic or etic before they’re used incorrectly on a group. Townzerz (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)