Eg0264a

Eg0264a, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Eg0264a! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Eg0264a, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jargon page peer review

Lead section: the lead section is very detailed. I think the article might flow better if some of the information is moved into another section. Specifically, maybe the second and third paragraphs could be in another section. Not sure if they would fit in the epistemology section, but maybe. I think the sections that exist within the article are good, although, there seems to be some imbalance. For example the epistemology section is much less developed than the Industry term section. The article does a good job of keeping the content neutral and the sources all seem reliable. -- Sh5272a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh5272a (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sophie Lampl's Peer Review

Overall, the layout of the article, especially the things that were added does flow together fairly well.

I think there is a very good use of "in-text" citations, especially after some key words that directly are linked to another page or even another wikipedia page. For example, the link/citation that was added after the word "Catchword" helps the reader to understand how that paragraph ends, if he/she is inclined to read more about how jargon relates to "catchwords."

Since Jargon is a rather technical topic to write about and add to, I would just add more specific examples, whether those be exaggerated examples or understated, "easier" examples to certain ideas. For example, I would like to see an example after the two terms "Technical Language" at the end of the fourth paragraph in the introduction. If there is an example right after a linked term, I think it could give some readers more of a specific example, if they don't click on the link to read more.

In the "Etymology" Paragraph, when it says, "Jargon was synonymous with pidgin in naming specific language usages", I would add a small example after that sentence and how it relates to Jargon.

Just like the other peer reviewer, Matt, I would keep the format the way it is because it definitely "flows" nicely and it touches upon the main ideas and aspects of what jargon means. I would agree with Matt and say to add more small examples after some linked terms and words at the end of a sentence (just for more context purposes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.192.116 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)