User talk:Kattusite/Goemai
Aemu's Peer Review
[edit]First read through: Great draft! Very thorough, and I like that you already added links to other wiki pages in it.
Section evaluations: Includes all necessary sections. Lead: Does include basic material, but would be beneficial to also add the language's ethnologue status. Definitely room for fleshing this section out a bit more, maybe by adding information on the history of the language and its people, and anything else relevant regarding your language's background. Also, when we get more information about it, some pictures/maps may be helpful. All content included is very straightforward and not hard to follow. Overall, great start!
Phonology: -Includes all the bare minimum information (vowel and consonant chart, syllable structure, tone). -Goes far beyond the practicum with more detailed explanations of the language's alphabet as well as specific information and examples for tone and syllable structure. -Broadly, there are no obvious gaps that I can see -You made it clear that your chart split the vowels to be following the IPA as well as the orthography, but is this necessary? I could have missed something, but I didn't think we needed to do beyond just the IPA. If you did do just IPA, it may make your charts a bit less cluttered since you can put unrounded/rounded and voiced/voiceless within the same boxes and eliminate some categories. -Examples for the syllable structure are organized and explained well. I think examples of tone would be helpful to see how the level tones change meaning in the language. -Wording throughout phonology is clear -Formatting is great, easy to follow -Organized in a logical and intuitive order -No clear/obvious inaccuracies to note
Morphology: -Includes all the bare minimum information (affixation, morphological processes) -Goes far beyond the practicum with details on the languages affixation (or lack thereof), examples and elaboration on morphological processes, and information on parts of speech and special cases in the language's morphology -Did obtain a broad understanding of the language and the nature of its morphology -More narrowly, I think the examples were good, but there could be more, especially for the parts of speech section. You state the nature of the nouns, verbs and adverbs well, but some examples that show how these parts of speech are implemented in the language would be beneficial to the reader. -Examples are clear to follow, but may be made even more clearer if you make a table? Definitely just a suggestion though and is up to preference, but I find visuals mixed in with large chunks of straight text to be refreshing and pop out easier when skimming for certain information on a wikipedia page. -Applying the example clitics you provided using interlinear gloss or some other method to show how these clitics work in the language may make their function more clear, since it was a bit difficult for me to understand how the clitics are applied since my language does not have any and I am not super familiar with them. -I really liked your examples and information included for reduplication! Made it very clear all the cases that this morphological process may be found in the language because you showed the change in meaning that occurs because of it. (Something along these lines for your clitic section may be helpful in clearing things up) -Wording is clear and formatting is straightforward and easy to follow -No clear/obvious inaccuracies to note
Syntax: -Includes all the practicum information (basic word order, headedness) -Does not quite go beyond, but very reasonable given the short amount of time we had after the syntax practicum -Leaves me with a broad understanding of the syntax of the language. In revising and adding more to the syntax page, adding more about the intricacies of the language's syntax beyond transitive cases and general headedness will greatly enrich the page -Great examples to demonstrate the basic word order and head-initial/head-final constructions. I also like that you specified what the word order is for both transitive sentence and clauses -Nothing confused me, very understandable -Organized logically and intuitively -No obvious inaccuracies
Draft as a whole: Great first draft! I can tell you took the time to go beyond the practicum preps and really flesh out the details of your grammar. I think the flow is good, and your section/subsection headers flow nicely (especially your morphology section where you effectively split it between word formation and parts of speech with more specific cases within it). There are no obvious redundancies, and the brief overviews that you write out at the beginning of sections, while there may be some overlaps, does a good job orienting the reader to the details of the remainder of the section. Your information seems to be in the appropriate section, but I agree with your note that you may find the parts of speech section to fit better in the syntax section after fleshing out some details and learning more about your grammar (I have a similar concern with my page!). The article is lacking on the syntax side, and could definitely include more elaboration on that, but I am sure that the next two weeks will bring great progress to that section of your wiki page so that it will match the thoroughness of the other two sections. The lead could also have some more information, as I noted above. I think there are many strengths to your wiki page, but I especially like the sequencing of your wiki page and how nicely the sections flow as well as how well placed/named your sections/subsections are! This is super important because it made it very easy for me to follow along through the information of your grammar, and also made it easy to go back and find specific information. One thing I think you should focus on is your choice and presentation of your examples as I mentioned before. Some sections could use some more examples that cover different cases of your grammar (e.g. examples on tone with translations). Furthermore, you may want to consider adding more visuals for the examples--or visuals in general--to add some variety to your already very informative, but also very word-heavy, page. Great job!
Aanteneh (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Daniel's Peer Review
[edit]General Comments This seems like a pretty good first draft. All the material seems there and there do not seem to be any glaring problems. the rest of the comments will be minor nitpicks.
Lead Straightforward and to the point. Some interesting facts about the language or the people beyond its endangered status would be nice additions.
Phonology Linking the IPA symbols in the vowel and constant charts to their respective Wikipedia would be nice. Confused about the following sentence: "Goemai has eleven vowel phonemes. Orthographically, these are represented by doubling the vowel symbol." What are 'these'? and what does doubling the vowel symbol represent? Is it a long vowel? Examples of tone would be nice.
Morphology Nice intro to the morphology section. It could be helpful to link more of the linguistics terms such as affixation, cliticization, reduplication, etc.
Syntax Looks great! Would add whether the language is nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive, if applicable. Same with case agreement!
Final Remarks Good start! It nice to see a Wikipedia page come to life. Keep up the good work!