User talk:Moringa0613/sandbox

I like the way you organized it by the different uses of Brogue and the controversies around it. I think that this is headed in the right direction, but it could use some reorganization of the sections. Like I think the dialect/accent section could be included with the controversy section. This would help the page be more cohesive instead of randomly placing controversies in between different sections. Other than that, I don’t think anything needs to be edited besides adding information. One thing my group could include in our article is more references and links to those references. Sheppyshepp111 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Great outline so far guys! I think one thing that may be helpful to you guys is including who is responsible for which portion of the article, although I am sure you guys know who is doing what. I agree with the previous comment that some of the organization could be improved. I think having an explanation of the topic, examples of the topic, controversies about it, and then whatever extra topics you want to discuss may be a good idea as far as organization. I do like how you guys already seem to have a ton of sources for your topic which is something my group is personally lacking in. Good job so far! AshlieDevenney (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that this article has a nice structure, and I think that it should turn out well. I'll just caution that, on issues that have controversy like this one seems to have, that you make sure that the articles that you are using are not opinionated sources, because that may get taken down if it does not coincide with Wikipedia's standards. I don't know if this kind of controversy would have article or opinionated sources like that, or if it's more of an academic controversy, but I want to make sure that you don't have to redo any work because someone comes and removes the citations for not being adequate enough for the site. Timex174 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

Your group developed a good outline for the article. I love that you tried to make a balanced content. There are a lot of sections covered in the outline. I think you should start making a Lead section with major headings based on the outline. The sources should be organized in the References section. Also, it's better to find more sources to support your article. The History section and Linguistic Features section can be developed as two specific sections, instead of being covered in the Introduction. Overall, you did a good job! Thank you! Thaonhiphan (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1. I think as part of introducing Brogue, a graphic map of the geographical range of Brogue use should be added. - 2. Something that I think will be appreciated by viewers is a video of Brogue being used. There are quite a few videos online. - 3. I think for those who may want to learn Brogue, some information should be provided about available sources. Hammed.MP (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I really like your outline for your article. It looks like there are a lot of sections that will be added to this stub. I was wondering if a Brogue is only isolated to Europe and America, or if there are other areas that a Brogue could be found in the world. I am especially glad that you are adding the misconceptions of this term and also that you are adding the controversies surrounding who the term refers to (i.e. Scottish English speech). I really like the bibliography that you have added to your list since this will help to navigate the page to relevant citations. Overall I think that this will become a great article once completed. Gives me some good ideas too for our vowel shift in regards to the phonology we can add. Good job!Jen35n (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your outline is very well structured and you guys have good points on the topic. I liked that you have a section differentiating accent and dialect, it is essential to explain this difference to readers interested in the subject. I think it would be important to add images of where brogue is used. It would also be a good idea to separate the section on linguistic features from the intro and discuss this more emphatically in a separate section. I believe it's great that you have added a section about the controversies and misconceptions related to brogue because it is a fundamental point to talk about. I consider that this section would be useful for my group's article. In general, you guys have interesting points on the subject. Great job! Debbie RT (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The outline looks good and has some really good points although I think a little more detail on the different sections that you plan on creating. I also think some maps would go well with the two sections of Brogue in Europe and Brogue in America just to give a nice visual on where exactly it's spoken. Overall I think it's a pretty good start to your article. Ebootjones42 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)