This was a well written article. I feel that all of the headings and following material for each one was a great style for it. Good job on citing the works, too. -Terence Heenan
Very well written. The wiki site flows logically and has information bulleted and bold so it grabs the attention of the reader. Has works cited at bottom and done correctly. You could add similar web sites as links at the bottom. - Dave Burkert
This was a good entry. I think your first paragraph was a little wordy. Anthony Jones
This paper had decent scanability. It was somewhat difficult to read due to the appearance of some run-on's. Some ideas should have been simplified in language to clearly illustrate authors point. Some more information should have been added to further the topic a bit more. There were not many outside links, but paper was overall O.K. --Apitt329 13:00, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
This enrty has some good examples. But it needs to be more to the point D Davis
This was good, but could use a little more explanantion on plurals. -Amberly Keough
The entry was very well written, but could improve on scanability.
This paper needs a lot of work. There were grammer errors such as the word "changes" should have been "changed" in one of the paragraphs and "some plural" should have been "some plurals". Also be carful with the words "and" and "a" because those words were mixed up in one sentence. There were some mistyped words that were typed twice such as "that end in end". The style of the sentences needs a little work in the first paragraph. Commas were missing and dashes in the words "mother-in-law". If some of these words were eliminated for an easy read, it would turn out better. --Dflowers 13:28, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)