User talk:Timex174/sandbox

This article draft has an overall sufficient structure; all of the sections that are listed in the Contents box and listed below with details pertaining to what will be included in the article. These details include what the author plans to write about concerning that specific section, as well as sources from which this information comes. These seem to be reliable sources, and therefore a substantial contribution to the final article. The detailed information included in this draft gives me a better idea as to which type of information to include in my own section of my group's draft. The Controversy page has great potential, but the author should be cautious in expanding this section in not including bias. Alyeska20 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
This page has an amazing start and overall structure so far. I was impressed by the embedded references already in the article and how we are able to see an obvious tie-in to the article. The change I would suggest would be to implement a strong Lead first so the article stays centered and does not deviate into other areas, which can make the article implement so many facets that could be broken down into more and more separate articles. That, I feel is the most important thing to improve the article since it will enhance all the areas nicely and each user will know their set focus. For our article, the references and structure were so solid that we'd like to bring our page to the same level for better organization. DGranados0809 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Your group did a very good job on creating a Lead section with major headings, which makes it easier for readers to follow. I love that you already developed the References section which includes the sources used for the article. The content is good for now. You also included some questions to prepare for later drafts. The organization of sections is appropriate. However, I think the part "Application of Phonetic Space" can be a major heading, instead of being covered in Controversy section. I think my group can start developing a References section as in your group's draft. Thank you! Thaonhiphan (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews
Thank you all for taking the time to read our article and give us feedback on how you think we can make our article better. I will keep your notes in mind as we move forwards with making this article the best that we can make it given the circumstances. To summarize the overall message that I get from the responses, I think a good way to move forwards with this should be to look at our sources and implement better application of headings and introductory topics. It seems that overall people are pleased with the way that we have handled the article, so that's good, and we will try to continue this level of work in the furture. 69.231.246.84 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)