User talk:Pswht/sandbox

What I liked:

I really liked your article and it was hard for me to find things to improve! It was very informative and well written. You really communicated what you needed to about your topic and I found it interesting. I really liked how you structured your sections and I liked your use of diagrams. You did an amazing job!!

Improvements:

Lead section - I would start off by giving an example of an idiom and clarifying its meaning. I would change "can" to "could" in the sentence " Subsequent research suggested... context of general models of comprehension. I would rewrite the sentence "Recent neurolinguistic research has found, using various techniques, several neural substrates..." Direct Access Hypothesis section I would rewrite "This hypothesis is based on the findings that demonstrated..." not "which" as written. Criticisms of Non-compositional models section I would rewrite "processed" in place of "processing". The Configurational Hypothesis section I would write "It was based on a finding that" not "which" & place a period after the last word in the paragraph "activated." Criticisms of Compositional Models I would write "supported" not "support"

Throughout you could italicize the model names like: literal first hypothesis, lexical representation hypothesis, direct access hypothesis, configurational hypothesis, conceptual metaphor hypothesis, dual idiom representation model to really highlight them.

Also for your two model diagrams you used the same title on both "The dual idiom representation model". Did you mean to do that? It's a bit confusing because it makes the reader think that the two diagrams are the same if they have the same title.

I think it's a good idea to have a concluding section like "Future work" or a "See also" bulleted list to wrap up your article nicely.

Edited by Denisa Luta Gizmeister1 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I really liked your article on the comprehension of idioms. It is very well written and you conducted a very thorough review of information that you included. Which made it hard to pick out things to work on. I would agree with the previous mentioned idea of giving an example of what an idiom is, in your lead paragraph. The inclusion of a hyper link for that subject of what an idiom was good idea but did not help till I read further down in the hyper linked article. For the criticisms of non-compositional models you could italicize the first,second, third, for the list of problems with that model.I agree with the previous comment that you should change the names of the two diagrams you posted since they are worded the same in the dialogue box under each picture(the one in the recent models section and the one in the compositional models section) and could confuse potential readers as to what each diagram is referring to specifically. I think that an applications section or some form of future works section would be a nice finishing touch because it would allow us to see the purpose of this research out side of just pure question asking or let us see where they are going next and what they are looking for. The whole article overall is very well done and is a good example of what an article should be.

Specs92 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)