![]() | A fact from Jean Berko Gleason appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the wug test page were merged into Jean Berko Gleason. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (31 May 2014) |
The subject's husband was a professor of mine long, long ago. EEng ( talk) 06:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. Is there anyone watching with expertise in JBG's research area, who could work with me on fleshing out the description of her research?
I'm glad to see CassandraRo has been adding substantive descriptions of JBG's research. However, I've left him/her a message reminding of the need for inline references, especially since this is a WP:BLP. EEng ( talk) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
DocJ, where do you get the idea expressed in your edit summary here [12]? It doesn't look anything like something derived from WP [13]. Am I missing something? EEng ( talk) 10:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The selected publication list is much too long. The usual shorter list can emphasize her contributions. I've added her CV to the external links so her publications are available at a click of the mouse and archived it so it won't go away over the years. I've added her most cited publication and will cut the list down. StarryGrandma ( talk) 03:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Cutting the list is a process rather that just applying criteria. I usually do this when students create a page for a professor by copying in the CV. They are thinking profile, not encyclopedia article. Basically it is go to Google Scholar (arranged by number of citations to the papers) but look at everything. Then just Google to see what else comes up. Then read any interviews, etc. to find out which of the pieces of work made the most impact. Students also usually leave out the professor's research, so I usually to add a description of the research to the article.
In the case of Gleason we already have a lovely article as well as a great profile in Google Scholar that links her publications with both her maiden and married names. She's written a lot of papers, but so have many just average researchers who haven't pioneered a new field of research. What she did is more important than how many papers it ended up in, and it helps to have a list that is short enough that readers will read it. I listened to the NOVA videos, read some interviews, read the transcript of her appearance on "On Being", looked at lots of abstracts and pdfs, looked at book chapters on Google Books, read her introductory chapter of her text on Amazon. The list below has most of the highly cited papers (mostly primary sources with the original work), most of the better known book chapters (mostly her reviews of parts of the field), and a book review that no one has cited but the title is so associated with her as a summary of issues in the field. I think I have the high points of the areas she has worked in: language acquisition, language loss, gender differences in language, and bilingual language development.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jean Berko Gleason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@
EEng: How is it better to introduce the bolded Wug Test
in an indirect reference
here, rather than with a direct definition? The lead has the bolded term but does not define it whatsoever in the current version, only mentioning its results and impact. Plus, starting a paragraph with Of her...
is awkward. I also don't see why you removed the wikilinks to
Lise Menn and
Nan Bernstein Ratner. —
MarkH21
talk
04:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
which used nonsensical words to demonstrate children's acquisition of and implicit knowledge of morphological rulesis hardly more of a "direct definition" than is
by which she demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology. At this point we're telling the reader what the test does; later we explain how it does it.
Of her.
Gleason devised the Wug Test, wherein child is shown pictures with a nonsense name and then prompted to complete a statement about it. Her work on the Wug Test demonstrated...or something similar would be better? The paragraph should begin with some definition of the test though. The
Of her Wug Test...is awkward, particularly because Wug Test has not mentioned yet.Then I'll add the links to Menn and Ratner back into the article text. — MarkH21 talk 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The Haber process is an artificial nitrogen fixation process. Despite employing the word is, this doesn't tell you what the process is, only what it does; the reader finds out what the process is in the article proper. Same situation. But see what I've just done to the article. E Eng 07:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
is, it's that there is a description of the test. I think your edit is an improvement. I think it could be further improved by either re-ordering the sentence or splitting it two sentence, e.g.
Gleason introduced the Wug Test, in which a child is shown pictures with nonsense names and then prompted to complete statements about them, which she used to demonstrate that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology.
Gleason introduced the Wug Test in which a child is shown pictures with nonsense names and then prompted to complete statements about them. Her findings from the Wug Test demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Could the Wug Test be given it's own article? I believe it could be, and then be expanded on, especially given how big it's become in linguistics pop culture (including the copyright controversy surrounding it). -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Jean Berko Gleason appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the wug test page were merged into Jean Berko Gleason. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (31 May 2014) |
The subject's husband was a professor of mine long, long ago. EEng ( talk) 06:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC) P.S. Is there anyone watching with expertise in JBG's research area, who could work with me on fleshing out the description of her research?
I'm glad to see CassandraRo has been adding substantive descriptions of JBG's research. However, I've left him/her a message reminding of the need for inline references, especially since this is a WP:BLP. EEng ( talk) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
DocJ, where do you get the idea expressed in your edit summary here [12]? It doesn't look anything like something derived from WP [13]. Am I missing something? EEng ( talk) 10:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The selected publication list is much too long. The usual shorter list can emphasize her contributions. I've added her CV to the external links so her publications are available at a click of the mouse and archived it so it won't go away over the years. I've added her most cited publication and will cut the list down. StarryGrandma ( talk) 03:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Cutting the list is a process rather that just applying criteria. I usually do this when students create a page for a professor by copying in the CV. They are thinking profile, not encyclopedia article. Basically it is go to Google Scholar (arranged by number of citations to the papers) but look at everything. Then just Google to see what else comes up. Then read any interviews, etc. to find out which of the pieces of work made the most impact. Students also usually leave out the professor's research, so I usually to add a description of the research to the article.
In the case of Gleason we already have a lovely article as well as a great profile in Google Scholar that links her publications with both her maiden and married names. She's written a lot of papers, but so have many just average researchers who haven't pioneered a new field of research. What she did is more important than how many papers it ended up in, and it helps to have a list that is short enough that readers will read it. I listened to the NOVA videos, read some interviews, read the transcript of her appearance on "On Being", looked at lots of abstracts and pdfs, looked at book chapters on Google Books, read her introductory chapter of her text on Amazon. The list below has most of the highly cited papers (mostly primary sources with the original work), most of the better known book chapters (mostly her reviews of parts of the field), and a book review that no one has cited but the title is so associated with her as a summary of issues in the field. I think I have the high points of the areas she has worked in: language acquisition, language loss, gender differences in language, and bilingual language development.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jean Berko Gleason. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@
EEng: How is it better to introduce the bolded Wug Test
in an indirect reference
here, rather than with a direct definition? The lead has the bolded term but does not define it whatsoever in the current version, only mentioning its results and impact. Plus, starting a paragraph with Of her...
is awkward. I also don't see why you removed the wikilinks to
Lise Menn and
Nan Bernstein Ratner. —
MarkH21
talk
04:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
which used nonsensical words to demonstrate children's acquisition of and implicit knowledge of morphological rulesis hardly more of a "direct definition" than is
by which she demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology. At this point we're telling the reader what the test does; later we explain how it does it.
Of her.
Gleason devised the Wug Test, wherein child is shown pictures with a nonsense name and then prompted to complete a statement about it. Her work on the Wug Test demonstrated...or something similar would be better? The paragraph should begin with some definition of the test though. The
Of her Wug Test...is awkward, particularly because Wug Test has not mentioned yet.Then I'll add the links to Menn and Ratner back into the article text. — MarkH21 talk 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The Haber process is an artificial nitrogen fixation process. Despite employing the word is, this doesn't tell you what the process is, only what it does; the reader finds out what the process is in the article proper. Same situation. But see what I've just done to the article. E Eng 07:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
is, it's that there is a description of the test. I think your edit is an improvement. I think it could be further improved by either re-ordering the sentence or splitting it two sentence, e.g.
Gleason introduced the Wug Test, in which a child is shown pictures with nonsense names and then prompted to complete statements about them, which she used to demonstrate that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology.
Gleason introduced the Wug Test in which a child is shown pictures with nonsense names and then prompted to complete statements about them. Her findings from the Wug Test demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Could the Wug Test be given it's own article? I believe it could be, and then be expanded on, especially given how big it's become in linguistics pop culture (including the copyright controversy surrounding it). -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)