User talk:Khaleesi29/sandbox

a. What is the level of importance assigned to the topic? What is the class level of the article, and what reasons did you find for that grade? The topic is "Contraction (grammar)" and the level of importance given to this article is a "C-Class" level and has been rated at having mid-importance. I found that this article is definitely missing many resources and references in order to have the material be substantially reliable. I also found that there are very few examples given for some of the languages that are discussed in this article and it creates a sort of gap between some of the examples given for a certain language and not enough for another. Also missing crucial details and fail to go in depth regarding each language.

b. Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address? Some of the comments address that some of the examples that were written previously either may be incorrect or suggest deletions be made because of questionable material being posted. There are also many comments about contractions that should be added to the article that should be worthy of being noted.

c. Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there a resolution? How does the language on the actual page to the talk about it? Two or more of the issues I've seen in this talk is to request more examples of contractions to be added to the article and it is done by various users. There are many contractions that are indeed missing that users suggest. For example, one user suggested that "Gov't and Int'l" should be added while another user stated that these were not contractions but rather abbreviations. The user advocating for gov't and int'l stated otherwise and gave the definition of both contraction and abbreviation. This issue is a matter of a definitive definition or classification of what a contraction is and if there is a sort of fuzziness between meaning one thing and also being categorized as something else too.

d. How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic--in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others. I don't think we addressed contractions at all in our discussion or reading. However, I did find it important to be able to delineate what in fact is considered a contraction and clearly separate it from an abbreviation. I believe that the user who brought up the two examples made a very good point by bringing it up. e. What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? The discussion itself forms itself around adding more examples of contractions in various languages. It feels as if the discussion page is trying to fill in the gaps that the article has and its goal is to clean up the examples or additions that seem to not fit or seem incorrect in order to perfect and have a better flowing article. The discussion gives me the impression that there was information added to it but it has no format and the article does not flow, meaning that it wasn't written concisely and feels like things were just added at random. It also jumps from explaining one language to the next and one language has some background information while another language in the article which is Chinese only provides you with a table of examples of contractions and nothing more. Therefore, you dont really know what to make of that information. There is a lack of balance and sufficient information in different parts of the article.