User talk:Alexasch/sandbox

Peer Review (Juan M. Ortiz)

The draft in general is a good start. I understand that you have very little to work off and the information already gathered is very fitting. The lead section needs some work done, but I assume you know that. It could include a little bit more information on what you will cover such as mentioning that there are theories about this topic. I do like the change from the original since the original was a little hard to understand in one read. I understand the structure and it is fitting for the article. You could also consider sort of switching the order of the sections; begin by explaining what heritage language learning is, the context and factors behind it and then move on to talk about the theories behind it. This would tie in the balance of your article which is good but a little bit more on the definition and different aspects of heritage language learning would be good too. The coverage is neutral and delivered well. At times, the wording did make me think there was some bias, such as the word shame, but it proved to be unbiased. I liked the section of detrimental factors which showed how information that could be widespread is false based on research, just like what was discussed in class. There is a good amount of sources and I see that there is proper references to them. I assume you will go back and provide footnotes and links later but other than that, looks very good. Ortizj8 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Barrett Caison) Overall the draft is pretty good and definitely headed in the right direction. The lead section was understandable and the contribution made by Grace helps to further elucidate the meaning of heritage language. The one part of the lead section I find to be confusing is the chart included by previous editors since, I found the information in the chart to be unclear. The information following the lead section, I thought to be very well organized. The structure that was defined for the article flows nicely and the new headings that were created not only helped expand what was being covered by the article but makes the information within the article easier to find. Coverage in the original article was obviously light but they did a great job developing it and providing well-balanced coverage. For example, instead of just mentioning incomplete acquisition theory, there was another section that elaborates on the different theories behind heritage language as well. This also convinces me that the coverage was unbiased. They acknowledge more than one side and none of the information has a persuasive tone, instead it’s all informative and factual and there are appropriate citations, or at least indication they’ll add one later. I would say that one thing that could be improved is that some of the sections could use a little more elaboration, such as the pedagogy one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.43.76 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Elizabeth Fryar)

I like what you've done here; I think you have a great start. While the original introduction/article does contain some good basic information, Grace's additions make the initial read of the article a lot more clear. I think that if she continues to reword and clarify the existing work (including the chart; what was that?) it would be an even stronger intro. The structure/order of the article overall makes sense, but I do recommend grouping some of the sections together under a larger heading (such as the Acquisition Theories, or maybe Context and Identity could go together). You might like this structure more than your current one, a list of eight unrelated subheadings. You all did a really good job, though, of covering the topic evenly; there wasn't much to go on, but all of the topics added make for a broadly informative article. I can't think of any aspect of heritage language learning you've missed. That you have two sections of acquisition theories shows me that your coverage was unbiased towards one perspective--well done there. And reading through the article, I found thus far no instances of biased wording. So far as references, I am impressed by all you've found! You've not yet linked/footnoted them, but most of them seem legitimate (maybe not #11 though, the news site?). Overall, you've obviously still work to do, but if you continue the way you're going, it will make for a strong article. Elizabeth Fryar (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review (Renee Kohler)

Overall your draft looks good. You've done quite a bit of work, given how short the original article is. The lead section is fairly easy to understand, but I feel like the preexisiting information includes a bit of jargon that might be unclear to someone outside of the field of linguistics. As stated above, I also find the chart from the original author to be confusing. The structure could use a little bit of a work. I feel that the section 'Native Language' could be combined into the lead section, if it is indeed necessary to state what a speaker's native language is. The two sections about theories of heritage language learning might work better being combined. Your coverage of the topic seems to be neutral and unbiased. You seem to have a great deal of reputable sources, though I'm not sure about the one from CBC Radio-Canada. Overall I think you're definitely on the right track. ReneeSKohler (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)