User talk:Ekwong9/sandbox

The table displaying William Marslen-Wilson’s academic career is very helpful and lays out what he has done and where he has done it very well. In the section “Speech Shadowing”, it may be helpful to explain what the close shadowing technique is and what a lexical item is. In the first paragraph of the subsection “Cohort Model” the explanation of how certain cohorts are activated and ruled out may be slightly confusing for a layperson to understand. Perhaps you could explain what a human lexicon is and what it means for neurons to become activated when a person perceives a word or part of a word. Under the “selection function” heading, the example you showed using the word ‘spank’ is very helpful for understanding the cohort model. In the “integration function” section, it may be beneficial for you to explain what the terms syntax and semantics mean. Additionally, under “criticisms” it may be helpful to explain the frequency effect and the faulty word input. Providing links to other wikipedia articles for these key terms would enable the reader to learn more about certain ideas/words if they choose to. Finally, the article focuses primarily on William’s development of the cohort model, which seems to be his most important contribution, however maybe you could talk about some other aspects of his life. For example, how he became interested in the field or his history. Overall, great article!

I agree with the a lot of what is said in the review above. The table and "spank" examples you used were both very helpful. However, a lot of sections in this page could have been expanded on. You described the cohort model well, but the "Criticism & Outcomes" subsection of it could have been elaborated on, especially since he was the one to update the version of Cohort theory. All subsections under "Current Research" are very simplified. You should explain what the results of current studies mean and why that is important, rather than just stating the purpose or results of the research. Overall, I think it was very well written, understandable, and nicely structured. To me, the major issue seems to be one of comprehensiveness, particularly for the later sections of the page.Chatuka (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)