User talk:Dinara.bb

Welcome!
Hello, Dinara.bb, 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)

Peer Review for Backchannel(linguistics)
Go over grammar and spelling. There were a few mistakes, like using apart instead of a part.

In definition and use section, the first paragraph, there is the statement that “humans generally want to cooperate with one another when participating in a conversation” what does it mean to be ‘cooperating’ and why do humans generally want to do it?

In the next paragraph continuers and assessments are mentioned but not defined, these should be defined for better understanding. “In other words the term "backchannel" is used to differentiate between the roles of the people involved in a conversation.” This makes it seem like this is the definition of backchannel. Is backchannel only used to differentiate roles in conversation? Does this define the role of a listener? You should not say "as seen below" unless it is directly below it, just say 'recent research' or 'more recently it is seen...' Also cite that point about the change in terms, and maybe think about placing it earlier in the paragraph near the continuers and assessments. “The use of backchannel is never necessary and is always a supplement to a pre-existing conversation.” If this is what you mean by “optionality” then combine this sentence with the one before it.

I think it may be interesting to add some more about the backchannel norms. Also the applicability section might be better named because it does not talk about what situations backchannel is used in but rather different cultures uses of backchannel. Also the examples in this section are good but could go into more detail and make the section about culture. The first sentence in this section is not necessary as it does not relate to the section.

Add some citations to the types of backchannels, especially phrasal and substantive backchannels. In the lead paragraph it was said that backchannels were verbal and nonverbal, however only verbal types were described in the section on types of backchannels. Consider adding types of nonverbal backchannel.

Majority of the recent research section is an in depth description of one research. Try to condense this into what they did/why and what they learned. Also is this research actually recent?

Overall, I think this is a good. I tried to include some places where you could do more research into to develop the article more. I also made some specific comments about word choice and clarity.Anhalford (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

peer review: very solid start! I think you have good subtitles and subcategories. To start, I think it might help to define some linguistic terms like phrasal, lexical, and substantive. Although the corresponding wiki articles are attached, someone might not take the effort to go read those, so maybe just a simple and understandable definition might help in explaining your own concept. Ew6848a (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)ew6848a