User talk:Mburnns/sandbox

Matt Rumohr's Peer Review
I think that this article does a great job in breaking down this complex and confusing topic and explains the components as well as how it is used differently based on the context of the interaction and the language.

For the talk section I would say that the wording is a bit confusing if I were to breeze through it, and perhaps it would benefit from having a brief example like the ones offered in the later part of the article. The rest of the lead does well to cover all of the major points for the article, and uses important key terms that are used in the article as well.

i would suggest that, for the overall structure of the article, that you switch the order of the Cultural significance with the Three-part interchange, because I think it is more important to get the basic ideas on the topic down before you start explaining how it varies based on cultural factors with a language.

I would say that the article does a good job using the right amount of space to explain adjacency pairs' components well and does not try to convince someone to a singular use of it. This being expressed well in the Cultural significance portion which makes sure to mention that the pairs do vary as well as how they are used or if they are used at all. With that being said, I do think that the content in the cultural significance section may need to be reworded, because it seems to be paraphrasing what the article had to say, and could be more effective if it were written as a synopsis for the adjacency pairs.

Overall I would say the biggest change that may need to be made is the wording in the cultural significance section, purely to make sure the content will remain on the wiki page. This seems like a great article overall and is a fantastic synopsis for such a complex topic.

Mr0960a (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)