User:Doaney/Lexical Access

Suggestions for my classmate
Your opening paragraph is good. I like that you have in-text citations that make it seem less like your opinion and shows more solid evidence towards your information. Although I know that this is an introduction, I do think it should maybe be a little bit longer. It is good that you mentioned the different factors that have an effect on our lexical access, because they are/should be discussed later on in the chapter. For the “What is Lexical Access” section I do however think that you should briefly foreshadow a few other things that you plan to discuss (i.e. lexical ambiguity) because it unconsciously prepares the reader for what they are about to learn about. I also wanted to let you know that your information was clear and to the point, which is good when writing a chapter like this.

The overall organization on this chapter is very well done. Information flows and is not too complicated for the reader to follow. The layout of the page is also great, due to the fact that many wiki pages have similar layouts.

I noticed that there were a few sections that were not entirely filled on in your chapter, and I am not sure if you just forgot to add in the information or something, but I just wanted to remind you, because I do think that the sections missing are going to be very interesting. “Emotional Connotations” is one of the sections that is not filled out, and one that I am looking forward to returning to and reading. Something else that I find adds character and interest to a page is graphics explaining your data. If you are able to find diagrams or graphs online feel free to add them to include excitement to your page.

In the "Lexical Ambiguity" section in the second sentence I do believe there is a word missing, I think you meant to write “One key discovery that has fueled research into this topic is the understanding that words and meanings do not necessarily (have) a 1:1 ratio”. I would have fixed it for you but I was not certain if you would have preferred a more elaborate word. Other than that part I do not see any problems with the Lexical Ambiguity section, in fact, I find it extremely interesting. I also find the Swinney experiment is very interesting. Your section on the “Dominant Meanings and Subordinate Meanings” was to the point, correct and was easy for a person of any reading level to understand and learn from.

At the end of your chapter there are two models that both only consist of one bullet naming the models. I would suggest perhaps doing another sub-bullet explaining what each of the models consists of and more information than just the researchers names.

My personal suggestions would be to add in a conclusion section, because it helps sums up the whole chapter for the reader, and will remind them of what the main points of the chapter are. Sometimes, after reading a lot of information and attempting to process it, people find it easier to have it laid out in front of them.

I think after adding in the necessary information to the sections that are missing some important facts, and elaborating on the sections that could go into more detail, along with adding in additional sources to the thoughts that you have stated. Obviously as Professor Newman stated you do not need to cite the textbook until the end, but if you are able to find other sources than that would really aid in your reliability of information!

And last but not least, do not forget to do your learning activity!

(Doaney 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC))