User talk:Ckl17/sandbox

Nick's Peer review

Lead:

• Lead should be at the top of the page before the table of contents, (i had trouble with this also)
• Awesome work with adding links to other wikipedia pages in your article, very impressive!
• Lead had some really good general information and introduced the topic really well!

Phonology:

• possibly explain rounding of vowels if applicable
• punctuation/spelling in some sections is a minor error, e.g. using the wrong form of 'there' under r-coloring
• phonology section was very thorough with great explanations
• possibly explain what initial weakening actually is, was a bit confused here
• Possibly give an example of stress in the language, as you have with the other phonological processes
• missing a bracket in vowel harmony section
• In general, i believe you could make your examples a little bit more clear, possibly set them below the sentence you have just written so they are more pronounced and obvious
• all of your sub-headings are well explained and easy to understand, great job

Morphology:

• fantastic explanations and detail
• maybe state whether your language has both partial and full reduplication, etc
• didn't mention if you have category changing suffixes or not or both
• was confused if your language had inflectional morphology (case morphology or not) as i saw locative and genitive suffixes but was not mentioned
• tenses for verbs? e.g. does your languages have verbs with perfect (past), imperfect tense, and if so how are they derived

Syntax:

• maybe give an example of code mixing
• well structured
• very clear and thorough examples!!! NICE WORK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickf510 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation: I believe your wikipedia page is looking very good so far. The lead sets up the page extremely well and has some intriguing information. The information in each section definitely flows logically and most subheadings have great explanations and examples (some should maybe be added). The article is very well balanced and each section has the necessary information. Strengths are definitely your lead and extremely detailed phonology section. Some more examples and extra details may be necessary in certain sections and also maybe elaborating on how verbs are formed and the tenses of verbs. Very few punctuation/ spelling errors. Overall it was a great article and I found it very interesting. Great job!

Nickf510 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

John's Peer Review

Lead Section: From this section, I immediately am getting information about your language which was good because I get a sense for what the rest of your article is going to be about. I think it would be a good idea to add how endangered the language is so that I understand more the importance of your Wikipedia page. But, I do like the reason you give about why the language is transitioning from in-use and out of use. Your lead is very precise which I enjoy, it isn’t too wordy and gets to the meat of your language which I think is a very good job. Also, the linking to other pages is very well done.

Phonology: Your language has a lot going on in its phonology section but I think you do a very good job and shortening it to as small a section that you can. The charts help me visually understand and see what points you are making in each sub section. I think to make this section even better, you can accompany your other phonological processes section with a short example for each one. The examples you use already are very concise and easy to understand.

Morphology: You jump right into the order of your language, I think that a quick sentence possibly outlining what you will be showing or describing what you are showing in order and the following sections would aid the reader in understanding what is being depicted. I like the depth you are getting into in your morphology section, I just feel a bit lost when making it through each subsection. I think this can be fixed with what I said earlier, a quick sentence that outlines everything in this section. Other than that, I like your examples and your explanations are clear and concise.

Syntax: Again, here it would help if you had a lead in sentence to adjust the reader to what he is going to read. You have a very clear example to begin with, but I am a little confused as to why you say the language is an SVO language, but the example says SOV. I feel like if this is accurate there should be an explanation. I like your headedness section and the info you give, maybe one more example would help your case.

Overall: Overall, the page is very good. Lead-in sentences would help some of your sections where I indicated but overall very good. The sections were organized and provided what seemed to be the adequate amount of information needed in order to get a full grasp of your language. The page was not distracting at all. I think your strongest elements in your page is the detailing in your phonology section. There was a lot of info but you made it concise and clear which was very impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngarcia331521 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)