User talk:Jspruill/sandbox

Peer Review ww

2. General Impressions:
Where is the lead section?
Why a separate section for phonological rules?
Good verb section – very clear, concise.
Okay actually, everything is really well-written and clear. You seemed to have found a really good balance between detail, clarity, and effective presentation.
Citations by page? Very nice

3. Section Evaluations:
All sections are there, except for the lead.

For phonology: Nicely fleshed out, great tables (might need to reformat the two column cells for the consonant IPA chart though), really good elaboration

For phonological rules: So much more than the practicums, this section is really clear and well-done. Your inclusion of examples is great!

For morphology: Very thorough, nice elaboration and clarifications

For syntax: Stuck closer to the practicum requirements, but still very clear with good fleshing out

BROAD: Phonology does an excellent job of giving me a general impression, good understanding, and the right amount of information about the language. This holds true for the Phonological Rules, Morphology, and Syntax sections as well. Really clear writing that gives a nice amount of information.

NARROW: Phonology has really great tables and examples. P. Rules overall was really, really well done with examples that were super illustrative (slight nitpicking: what’s the center column for the table for subject markers and positions articles? It should probably have a label). The examples in morphology and syntax were also very helpful for understanding, although just in general, the formatting for the glosses could be improved.

Didn’t understand: Nothing really. My note for this would be to make sure to link to other Wikipedia pages (e.g. for the IPA tables, for concepts like reduplication and compounding that are common in linguistics but might not be as obvious to general readers).

Phonological Rules: The lead to vowel phenomena is very specific and mentions a specific thing (vowel contraction) that seems like it should have its own subsection.
Organization: I think you could probably put p. rules under phonology, but otherwise, everything works pretty well. Also, I noted a couple of smaller things in the section specific comments above.

Nothing came off to me as inaccuracies or misinterpretations.

4. Holistic Evaluation: The logical flow and presentation of the article are really good, with no redundancies and effective organization (putting things where they belong). The examples were really good and helped with understanding, and there is a really nice amount of information in each section. Generic writing things (punctuation, spelling, etc.) were all fine.

STRENGTHS: writing style, examples, presentation, information balance and clarity
WEAKNESSES: slight issues on the organization, syntax could use a little bit more rounding out, lead is missing
Wilburw (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)