User talk:Haleybarton/sandbox

Peer review: I think everything that has been added so far is a great contribution to this article. I also think that everything that you guys want to add is helpful and important information. Also, the layout of the article flows nicely and explains what hedges are in a simple way that anyone can understand. Your examples are good, and I think that giving hedges in other languages would be interesting addition. The organization of that section could flow a bit better but I do not think that is taking away from the article. I also agree with Kalen I think that the first sentences is a bit long an could use some editing.Ericaldagar (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Ericaldagar (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Great contributions, all very valid. It's great that you are linking terms as you go. Some points that I did notice: 1) remember the use of the oxford comma, 2) I would split the very long initial sentence in the lead paragraph into at least a couple, more concise sentences, 3) The "Hedges in Different Languages" list could be split up into multiple columns or into a table; it just seems to take up too much space. Other than that, the additions are great, especially the examples. Those are super important. KalenTheGreat (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)KalenTheGreat

Peer Review
Hayley, I like how you have the article organized. I think with a lot of the Linguistics articles that it is important to both introduce and utilize other ideas in Linguistics yet still keeping the tone simple enough to be deciphered by non-Linguists. I think at this point you have a good balance of that. I did see one or two places that could use some proofreading, but I know that will be taken care of before you move your article to the live section. The only thing that I would add on personally is something you already have planned, which was hedges in other languages. Adding a few more examples might provide an even stronger idea of what hedges are, though I understand that putting too many would not be helpful either, so 4 may already be the right amount.Jbergmann5 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Compared to the original article, you've already done a lot of good (needed) work cleaning up the format of the article. I see you have also been cleaning up the language and presentation of the bullet points, as well as added some more information. All I can say is keep working on the language, I'm kind of surprised the original article is not marked with non-wikipedic language; keep improving it! The data seems to overpower this article, so if cross-linguistic data is to come I would suggest considering having it replace some of the English examples given. Keep up the good edits CorporalKobold (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)