User talk:Herre120/sandbox

1. The article provided actual examples of research that Eve V. Clark conducted and participated in. There are citations that go along with articles that cover the research appear to be really interesting ones. The language used within the write-ups are easy to understand for anyone who is interested; you don’t have to be a linguist to get what it says! “Clark's accomplishments and reputation in linguistics is shown in her ability relate language acquisition to cognition”, we liked this a lot, it highlights the importance of her work. It also does a good job maintaining an unbiased point of view while presenting the facts.

2. We suggest adding links to the publications section of the wiki page. Providing a link to the work would make it easy to access the different publications for those individuals who would like to read it. There could be a few places to add hyperlinks, like joint attention for example, that would bring them to another wiki page for a better in-depth search for anyone who is curious or doesn’t quite understand the application within the text. It would also be beneficial to link to the authors that are mentioned as well, so that the public has that option to be directed to their respective pages. It might help to rework the introduction of her page because it seems a bit repetitive. Another aspect is to avoid absolutes like “everyone” or “everybody” to avoid generalizing. We would recommend rewording that as well to something along the lines of “most people” or a specific number if applicable.

3. The current wikipedia page does not have sections for the main points of discussion, such as a biography, research, legacy, etc. Having subsections will make the page flow better and information easily accessible for readers. The article doesn’t even have a research section so this is an extremely important section that should be given a lot of attention! That way the people know how awesome of a contributor Eve V. Clark is to the field. She should be proud when she reads her new and improved wiki page! The references are listed there but they should be formatted into the article as it would be in any other wikipedia article. Don’t clump everything together, spread things out and don’t make things too dense. It will become difficult to read. It would help to organize the studies in a way that moves in a more orderly and chronological way so that its not jumping around so much from different sections of the linguistic fields to another (and possibly back). Right now it does seem a little bit disjointed in the sense that its a bunch of different people writing about different aspects in her research, it’ll help to pull it all together as one cohesive section. We think there might be a way to incorporate the different paragraphs so that it can transition into a different topics smoothly and help it flow better than having the distinct differences that makes it more like a list.

4. It's made us reflect on the flow of our article so it goes together and is easy to read for anyone who has an interest and is not just a student of the craft. It’s also important to make sure that the mass of information flows to aid the understanding for people. We really appreciate the level of detail that the Eve Clark group employed in their article. We think the detail on this article made us want to add to our piece in a way to beef it up. Considering how you guys picked out such great articles, its really inspired us to want to do such a great job so that all of our researchers hard work can be appreciated. (Sviri27 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC))