User talk:Rachelwech/sandbox

There are many elements in the draft of the Wikipedia article “Phonemic contrast” that will greatly improve the article, but there are also elements that could be further worked on by the group. Discussed below is the understandability of the lead section, the clear structure, the well-balanced topic, the neutral coverage, the citations, and further areas of improvement, provided by the first draft presented by the group. In terms of the lead section of the first draft, the very first sentence is a great way to introduce the topic of phonemic contrast. The phrase “means that” should be reworded because it makes the sentence confusing. Maybe rephrase it to say “Phonemic contrast is the idea that….” The example of leak/league and bit/bi:t is a great example of phonemic contrast. Breaking up the example into more sentences would lead to a clearer understanding of the example. Compared to the original article, this is a much more understandable lead section, and it is a great starting point for the article. Concerning the structure of the draft, it is clear to the reader the progression of the article. Starting out with the introduction and phoneme vs. allophone is a great way to introduce the general idea before the article moves into “heaver” content with acquisition, further contrasts, phonological gaps, and neutralization. The subheadings are clear and accurately summarize what the section will contain. The two different bold subcategories under “Acquisition of contrasts” is a great addition to the article because of the different modes of acquisition. The subcategory “In L2” should be reworded to make it more clear what is being expressed. Compared to the original article, this draft is much more clear. Related to the structure of the draft, the topic of phonemic contrast is almost fully covered because of the variety of different components that make up the draft. It is definitely appropriate to distinguish between phoneme vs. allophone. Break up the first sentence of this section to make shorter sentences, which will be easier for the reader. It was great to include an English example and an example in a different language. I think this section could be more fleshed out because this is the ultimate phonemic contrast, which is the entire topic of the article. The “Acquisition of Contrasts” section is a great addition to the article. Great job in the “infants” section, but I would love to see more in the “L2” section. The “Diaphonemic contrast” section was a little confusing for me to understand, but I think this section, in general, is a great addition to the draft. The “Phonological gaps” section is very clear, and it was a good idea to keep the chart because it provides an understandable example that is clear to the audience. The “Neutralization” section is also a very clear section, and the example is great. I think this section can remain short, just how it is. One part of this phenomenon that could be developed in the article is the cognitive representations of these phonemic contrasts. Because this is a phenomenon in the brain, it would be appropriate to describe the cognitive aspects of phonemic contrasts. The coverage of this draft is neutral because of the absence of varying viewpoints of this topic, in general. The draft is presented very factually without opinions or biased viewpoints. In addition, some of the citations seem to be reliable. They seem to come from a variety of journals, and the links to the articles worked. I would be concerned with the dates of some of the citations. For example, maybe the citations from 1936, 1962 and 1971 are out of date. There could be newer articles that have further developed the ideas from these dated articles, but these articles could be good for a “history” section. It also might be interesting to have some references from psychology or cognitive journals regarding phonemic contrasts. In addition to correcting some specific examples mentioned above, remember to make the draft easy to understand to the average reader. Break up long sentences and provide examples that the average reader will understand. As with any writing, look out for grammatical errors because there were some of the errors in the draft. Also, the inclusion of a “history” and a “conclusion” section would be a good addition. The “history” section could include how phonemic contrasts were discovered and first researched, and the “conclusion” section could include areas of further research or “problems” with the topic as a whole. In addition, there could be more “See Also” pages that would direct readers in the right direction to further understanding the topic. The draft is a great starting point for the article! Keep working hard! Katiesobon (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Katie Sobon

In summation, this is definitely a good starting point for this article. Of course more research would benefit the development of these sections (like stated above) and the use of external sources would also assist in linking this topic to other important aspects of understanding phonemic contrasts and its effect on L2 learning. I am extremely interested to see if there is any research about returning to the ability to percieve these differences after infancy. As to not further overlap with the above review, it is important to mention that your structure is sequenced such that it will allow for further expansion of these subgroups and I am excited to see what research you all are able to find! Caitlynadams (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Caitlyn Adams

Your draft is definitely a great start! Your layout follows a logical progression and it's nice that you already have the formatting down. Based on the structure of most Wikipedia articles, it would be a good idea to move your introduction so it appears before your contents section. This way the readers get a glimpse of what the article will be about before you get into the breakdown of topics. That being said, I noticed that the introduction does not mention what the article will discuss - a thesis statement, if you will. If you could include a short description of the subtopics that you'll be elaborating on, it will help the reader get a better idea of what you will be discussing. It's a very good thing that you included examples in most of your sections; for readers that are not very familiar with linguistics and/or phonology/phonetics, examples help immensely in illustrating what you're saying, especially if they learn better with visual examples instead of descriptions. If you could include some example for the "In infants" and "Diaphonemic contrast" sections, that would be wonderful! Additionally, changing up some of the wording would be helpful. For example, I noticed that "different" was used frequently; using some synonyms such as "varying" or "distinct" would help eliminate some of the repetition. There were also many parenthetical phrases that could be made into full sentences; doing so would help flesh out your article, as well as make it easier and faster to read. Finally, I noticed that you don't have a section for related readings. Including some links to pages that explain the basics of phonology, IPA, and/or terms such as 'phonome' (again, for those that are really not too familiar with the subject) would round out your article and cover any bases that a reader might not completely understand. Overall, I think your content is great. I don't know much about phonemic contrast so I'm looking forward to seeing the final product! Best of luck! :) (A42nato (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC))