User talk:Cainss/sandbox

The name of the article I am evaluating is called, "Ellen Prince". The reason why I chose this article, is because I feel like it needs a lot more information. At the first sight I saw this article, I realized how short it was, compared to Betty Birner's article. Everything is relevant to the article topic, but what distracted me, or just caught my attention, is how broad it is compared to the other articles we were to look at. I did look thru all the topics. The other article topics had more content. But as a person, the article, "Betty Birner" had more content, for example: Her research and examples, Biography, Publications, External sources, and references. As for the article I chose to evaluate, it's just too short. The article is neutral. The article does not have any kind of persuasion or claims, frames, or bias information. The article contains solely information about Ellen Prince. I believe as viewpoints I understand this question as the information the author(s) of this article had put disclosed. The article is underrepresented, because there isn't much information for Ellen Prince. I feel like more representation, more information could have been added under more contents. By looking at Google, I see more information about Ellen Prince. Which could be added by me. More details would be ideal to not underrepresent. I checked thru almost the majority of the links and sources. The source does support the claims in the article. All the fact referenced are from professional places. For example Google Scholar, official linguist information, President details, as stated in the article. They are neutral sources. There are no biased information, which is great. Personally I feel like more information could've been added, so it does have information missing, or included to give more detail. As far as out of date information, I'm honestly not to sure, but everything disclosed and source (cited) seems legit and still goes to that page to see where the information was taken from. Under the Talk page of this article, there are no conversations at all, as far as I see, and as far as today, no conversations yet. As far as rating, I do not see any ratings, nor it isn't a part of any WikiProjects, probably because it is so broad. If there were more information, content and details I'm sure there would have been ratings and added to a WikiProject. Wikipedia discusses this article well, and with information, just broad information. This topic is just so broad compared to the ones we discussed in class, for example, Cheetos. Question: Ellen Prince as stated is well-known for her typology of information statuses in discourse, Can you provide some examples or names of the typology information in discourse, if it has been disclosed is this her most well known example?

Group Article: Determiners
I see we have chosen the article, Determiners, in our group. Based on the article it Wiki automatically says article needs to be improved, add citations from reliable places, and even verify some citations. Based on the chat late Sunday, we decided to work on the references/citations to make the article better. I, personally think some words (grammar) could be rephrased. I know this article isn't related to the group article, but based on looking at this article it is more clear and understandable step by step of whats and Indefinite Pronoun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_pronoun. We could make our article look understandable like the indirect pronoun article.

Cainss (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Cainss (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Sarah Cain

HW 5
As my group have discussed our plans, we have decided to do helpful and informative tasks to improve the article, Determiners.

Looking at the article as one of my group member stated, it is brief and could need more information and sections.

My plan, is to reword some grammatical errors and make more understandable than what was originally written. Some sections does not flow, I must reread to understand the sentence.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm

In this above link I found excellent information anyone can reach a student account is not necessary to open the link, it is available to all and not just scholarly use. This link is very informative and I could use it to add more information about my article. This should help any random person who never heard of determiners, to understand.

Cainss (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Cainss Cainss (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)