User talk:BrentTE/sandbox
The structure and organization of this article makes a lot of sense overall. It’s still a draft but it already looks and feels like it’s already been published.
I like how the lead is short and concise and doesn’t have a lot of unnecessary information. The second sentence could maybe be worded a little better, though, as it sounds more confusing than it actually is. The word “design” probably shouldn’t be used twice in the same sentence.
The first section is very good overall, and the table helps a good deal. I also like how the first paragraph explains what is on the table. A more in-depth explanation of the table in the first paragraph might be a good addition but isn’t really necessary. PLEASE look at the end of the first paragraph, though. It looks like a couple words/letters may have accidentally gotten deleted.
I really appreciate the addition of the Other Models around the World section and the North America examples. The summary for that section is especially good. My biggest concern with this article is the division between the History in Latin America and the Modern Use section. If the countries in the History section still use BIE (btw, check your BIEs. I know I saw at least one IBE, make sure you're consistent!), maybe you should mention it. Also, the Argentina section and the Mexico section seem a little off balance, but perhaps the Mexico section is limited by the amount of data. The last two sections have good information, sources, and examples, but could stand to be edited for grammar and flow. However, everything is off to a great start and this is already looking like a good article! Natprotz (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Of immediate notice is how much the lead section is shortened. I like the new lead section as it is focused, succinct, and easy to understand, but it seems to be misleading as is compared to the original lead section. The original lead calls BIE a general education system used often in LA, while the new section calls it a system used exclusively in LA (or at least the diction implies this). Is your new lead section correct while the other is misleading? If so, this is fine, but if not there should be a way to mediate this difference.
I am particularly fond of the new history breakdown (by country). This is more clear and will likely be way more useful to readers looking this info up. The sections in general look like a good break down and are good expansion on what was pre-existing, though I question section 6 (The value of failed IBE language revitalization projects). I like the gist of the info there but the title given it kind of unwieldy in length and so specific it makes it seem as if it should not be a topic of its own. All in all, I think the easy fix is to just think of a way to shorten and rephrase this section header so that it is more succinct.
In section 1 I question I question whether there is bias in the explanation of education types. As linguists, trained in the manor we have been trained, I am of course inclined to agree with you that immersion and maintenance are the best models, though I am not sure that other fields of study agree. The way that that first paragraph is phrased really put our preferred method in a better light while minimizing the other methods. I wonder if this is biased. I would hesitate to change it because of my own position ( I agree!!), but wonder if it should be changed. Perhaps something to talk to Dr. Becker about, because I am not sure.
Coverage in the history section looks good, I really like that balance, except Guatemala—that looks a little lacking in info. I think that you guys asked about this in class though and we decided a short amount of info was ok so long as that link was there… I am pretty sure this is ok then but just want to point it out to make sure. As for coverage in the Other Models section, the way it is written it makes it seem as if those two models are the only ones in North America. It would be better it was made explicit that those are examples and not just the only other NA models. Same idea for th Modern Use section… are these the only modern uses or just two examples?
As for the sources… the citations themselves look good, though I have not heard of all of those journals. I suspect though that you all know how to do good research and have found reliable sources. The way the sources are used looks good, aside from in the last section. This just reads like a summary/paraphrase of the source talked about there. This is not the structure Wikipedia generally uses and we have been trained to avoid this kind of thing. This section is short though and should be easy to rework.
Looking great! You guys have put in a lot of work and it shows! Briannah J (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Overall the structure of the article looks really good. Your new sections make sense and flow pretty well from one to the next. The introduction is very short, though, and since the introduction is kind of meant to be a quick run-through of everything the article will then cover, you might consider fleshing it out. It seems you have deleted material from the original introduction as well-- unless it is false, consider rewording it or moving the information around if it is currently unclear.
Your sources look legitimate/reputable, although with such a long article I would maybe suggest adding a few more just to make sure the information is coming from a variety of sources-- information that's been verified more than once is always good, and additional sources could help add balance. One addition that could be made involves the controversy surrounding the different types of bilingual education; it's important to show the good and the bad sides to it as well as both viewpoints. Even though, linguistically speaking, we know which side is "right," the other side in this case (people who believe models that discourage language use outside the majority language) is still widely held to be correct and deserves at least equal time on the page without necessarily framing it as an aside or prefacing it with the fact that it's false, at least not without significant citations. Something to consider is whether someone with the complete opposite viewpoint to yours would take offense at the article or immediately want to rewrite it to better suit their viewpoint upon reading it. If there is a chance they would, it is unlikely you are being neutral enough to meet Wikipedia standards.
The article could still use substantial editing in a couple regards, mainly that a lot of sentences seem clunky, unclear, or in some way incomplete or ungrammatical. It's good to start with just getting the information down, but a close read-through is definitely necessary at this point. Something specific I noticed is that some of the abbreviations of institutions are used without ever giving the full name, which makes these sections harder to understand since you are just referring to some undefined acronym when writing further about them. This is primarily true of the "AIDESEP/ISPL" section although I think it happens one or two other times.
The IBE and Intercultural Code section is very different in tone from the rest of the article and reads more like a paper, constantly referring to a single author and obviously paraphrasing or quoting them. The opening sentence of this section mentions this author without ever introducing the concept at hand; it seems to be continuing from an introduction that is not present in the article itself, making it very confusing.
Since the modern use section contains fewer countries than the historical section, it is kind of unclear what happened there, whether there are models currently being used that aren't addressed or whether they stopped being used for some also unaddressed reason. Consider expanding as necessary or adding explanation for the discrepancy.
The restructuring of the article is currently its strongest point. The sections are definitely useful and clear. The weakest points include some of the writing itself, in style, tone, and grammaticality, but this is fairly easy to edit. Definitely keep in mind neutrality for this article and I think it will turn out really well. Rachelwech (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)