User talk:Gandreal/sandbox

Overall, your writing was clear and the information presented on your page was easy to comprehend. There are a couple of things I would like to mention, though.

First, I think you can include more hyperlinks on your page so it’d be more integrated with other articles on Wikipedia. Also, to make it more consistent with other wiki pages, I think you can use different levels of headings and subheadings.

Content-wise, I think you can expand on what “statistical learning in child language acquisition” is more. Although you did give a lot of specific information on Macrus’ study, I’m not sure how useful that would be for an average wiki reader. Perhaps you can just highlight the significance of his results, instead of going through the steps of each experiment. Also, It would be helpful if you included more studies beside from that one. You can mention few other studies that have either replicated or conflicted with his findings.

As well, though you mentioned and contrasted the nativist and empiricist views of language acquisition at the end of the “Current Research” section, I think it’d be better if you discussed this earlier on your page and highlighted how these views are related to the concept of “statistical learning in child language acquisition”.

Last, I think you can expand on your “Future Research” section. For example, you can just briefly describe what “domain-specific” statistical learning means and why that is important for this area of research.

-	Priscilla Ho-Tai

Your article successfully summarizes the idea of statistical learning in child language acquisition, however there are a few points to be mentioned. Although your page is brief and to the point, which is good for the Wikipedia audience, I think your topic can be expanded on. I agree with Priscilla with regards for the need of hyperlinks and more headings and subheadings. This allows the reader to break down the subject and make it easier to comprehend.

Expanding on “current research” would be useful, and you might want to consider integrating further studies and articles. Also, a subheading for “criticisms” would help balance out the research and create a more neutral point of view. I think your summary of Marcus’s et al. study was a bit hard to follow for the average Wikipedia user. It may be wiser to perhaps discuss the importance of the study and the main results. I also believe you should expand on the nativist/empiricist views, explaining the significance of each.

Finally, it may be helpful to add more references as the minimum is 15!

Good job!

--Liane Minnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminnes (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)