User talk:Jhj43/sandbox

Peer Review
1. I appreciate the way the presumption versus presupposition was explained. Having an explanation for presumption was very helpful, considering I tend to confuse these words myself! I also really appreciated the concrete examples of the presuppositional triggers listed. These examples are clear and outline the trigger in its environment, with a working explanation of each.

2. Regarding some changes that could help this article, I would first say that the definition of "presupposition" in Zehra's idea section might need fact checking. The definition, "There is no way of changing a presupposition later in the conversation," might be questionable. From my understanding of the term, they can be changed, but this would bring social conflict between the addressee and the speaker. This also might be incorrect; so, further research might be necessary to clear this up. Also, I would say that for the presuppositional trigger Questions, the definition is somewhat unclear. Having an example as well would really help this presuppositional trigger in its use. I also would like to note that the proposal for this article seems rather hefty. It seems like it would be difficult to accomplish all of these goals, but so far what has been accomplished has good insight and application. Maybe changing the goals of what you want to be accomplished would help you better organize your thoughts and focus more on the sections that you have already started.

3. The most important change that needs to be made to this article is the amount of sources used. So far, there doesn't seem to be any citations listed for reference in this sandbox. Having all of this information without citation from a reliable source (academic journal, research text, credible text, etc) makes this article seem as if it's either creating biased information or that there might be authorship issues at play. For each section that is worked on and changed, a source is necessary to making sure the information is accurate with proper authorship. Splacanica (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
1. I like how there was a definition of presupposition given at the beginning of the article. That would make it easier to understand if someone was confused on what a presupposition is. I also liked how there were many examples given of the different types of presuppositions. I also like how every time a new term is mentioned, it is defined. I am not super familiar with presuppositions and all of these examples and definitions were really helpful! Definitely keep them in the article.

2. A change I would suggest making to this article is to edit the Questions section which is under the Presupposition Triggers heading. There is no example given and currently it says "Presuppose a seeking for what is sought." I had to read over that a few times to actually understand it. I think a better idea would be to get rid of that explanation and add an example with a brief explanation of that example. Another change I would suggest making to this article would be to add examples in the Presupposition in Critical Discourse Analysis section. This was very confusing to read and I feel like adding some examples might make it easier to understand. Also, using simpler words to explain this complicated topic will also aid in its comprehension.

3. The most important thing to do to improve this article would be to add examples and definitions where applicable. When trying to explain a topic, I feel like examples and definitions are essential for comprehension. It can be easy to forget to add these things when writing an article on something that you are very familiar with because you already know definitions and examples. So just keep in mind that if something is a linguistics term, it will probably need to be defined or explained. Michelle Goldberg (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)