User talk:Nickmillan/sandbox
hi
hi
Peer Review
There is a large amount of information here, and there have definitely been improvements from the currently published page. The addition of more detail in the first part of Brain Centers is helpful in giving more credence to the neural equivalence of signed languages in the brain, but I did find it to be a bit overwhelming. I think adding more organization with subsections would help clarify the brain centers being talked about in a more categorical way. It could help to present it in a more clearly delineated chronology of these theories and discoveries. There are indications such as "at this time", but that time isn't specified, so it's hard to get a clear picture of how it developed historically. That section also doesn't have many citations at this point.
The heading at the bottom limits the discussion in the lower section to ASL, but the text refers to signed languages as whole. I'm not sure whether the intent is to limit it to ASL or to talk about signed languages in general. Otherwise, it could be interesting to add some information about how the brain processing signed languages during language acquisition if that research is available. A larger variety of sources used could also enrich the content you already have. Overall, it's definitely a strong start and presents a wealth of information.Geo.grail (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
Your article is off to a great start! I love your topic, and you did a really nice job of presenting your information in an unbiased way. Here are a few things I noticed:
The title of your first section, “The language of ASL: similarities to and differences from spoken languages,” is very long and wordy; you should try to condense it if you can. Also, as Geo.grail mentioned, since your article seems to be discussing sign languages as a whole, you shouldn’t specify ASL in particular. Perhaps try a title like “Sign languages vs. spoken languages.” In this section, you may also want to more clearly distinguish between the differences and similarities that you’re outlining. Right now, they’re jumbled together, which can cause confusion for the reader.
Under the section “Brain centers responsible for language processing,” the tenses are a bit unclear. In the second paragraph, you say: “Early on, it was noted that Broca’s area was near the part of the motor cortex controlling the face and mouth. Likewise, Wernicke’s area was near the auditory cortex.” This makes it seem as though these locations have changed since then, so you should be clarify what you mean.
Obviously, this is a work in progress, so you’re still compiling your sources, but make sure to add citations to support all of your claims. Both sections, “The language of ASL: similarities to and differences from spoken languages” as well as “Brain centers responsible for language processing,” are severely lacking citations. Cykresge (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
This is a great article. The article describes the similarities between spoken languages and sign languages from the perspective of brain studies, and shows that sign languages are equivalent to spoken languages. I like how the article compares the left and right hemisphere of the brain and I think it would be better if some images of the brain can be added to the article so that readers can follow easily. Moreover, besides the comparison between spoken and sign languages, I think it would be interesting to compare a written form of languages with sign languages. Since people get information visually from the written form of languages, how does it different from or similar to comprehending sign in terms of brain activity?Kazito (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)