User talk:Priyap97/sandbox

Peer Review
Hello everyone,

1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? You two did a very good job of gathering sources and doing research. You expand upon the stub article and provide interesting examples to clarify what seems otherwise a difficult concept.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? (As you review, make spelling, grammar, and other adjustments yourself). Obviously, my first recommendation is to take your disparate subtopics and combine them into the article. I cannot assess the structure of the article until it exists.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Perhaps the best advice I can give is to limit the scope of your changes. You seem to be concentrating on SemEval 2007 and the Skip Gram Model and that may be enough for a meaningful update.

4. If I had more time, I would include examples of my topic similarly to how you provided examples. Jimanczur (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
'''1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?''' I found that the article provides two important components to lexical substitution, Skip Gram Model Findings as well as SemEval Findings. Being that I have very little understanding of both of these factors, I found the information that you both shared to be helpful. I think both can be expanded upon to be clearer and more descriptive. One thing that is definitely helpful is the fact that you both included examples in your sections. Since this is a topic that can be hard to conceptualize, the use of examples make it much easier to understand the information.

'''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? (As you review, make spelling, grammar, and other adjustments yourself).''' I suggest paying a bit more attention to grammar. I went in an edited the grammatical errors that I found. However, I understand that in drafting an article, it is easy to focus more on content rather than on the grammar itself, so this isn't too big of an issue right now.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing in improving this article is including more information surrounding the presented topics. Like I mentioned above, I have very little experience in lexical substitution, including the subsections mentioned in this article, and while the information presented definitely provides me with an understanding, it is not clear enough or descriptive enough for me to be completely informed. Also, I am sure this is because you are still in the drafting phase of the article, so you are still collecting information regarding these topics.

'''OPTIONAL: Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!''' In reviewing your article, I noticed how important grammar and clarity are in editing my own article. I think its easy to get swept up in the content itself, and to forget about the importance of clarity/grammar, however reviewing your article allowed me to gain a different perspective on this. Overall I think you both are doing a great job in drafting your article! Keep up the good work! God6181996 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)