User talk:Smmlhck/sandbox

Peer Review

This wiki page has all the information and section it needs! However, the lead is yet to be written. The article goes well beyond the practicum information. T
he explanation before the in-depth information in each section helps with general understanding. The examples are still not added in this wiki page (I believe you are waiting for instructions on the 3 line glossing?). The page as a whole did not have any gaps. One part that was particularly challenging to understand was the subsection "syllable types". Adding in some other wiki links to the terminology you use should be helpful in understanding for the reader. The sentences are well written in this page. The tone is neutral and informative. There are no grammatical inaccuracies overall. However, I do notice that you mention Lovegren before introducing him. This caused some confusion. A small introduction to the author in the lead would clear this problem.

Lead:
The language family is missing in the bullet point lead.

Phonology:
Vowels could be explained more.
The context paragraph could be rephrased better.
Clarify the vowel chart - which dialect's vowel inventory is it? Is it a chart that combines all the vowels across all dialects?
Syllable structure needs to be explained more. Maybe create a chart?

Morphology:
Linking the terminology to other wiki sites for the reader's understanding
Incorporate examples
After incorporating examples, remember to briefly describe how the example follows the grammar even if it is obvious

Syntax:
Incorporate examples
Elaborate on examples

This article is well-balanced and has an appropriate amount of information(at times just a bit too much due to the density of the information/ which is a good thing). There aren't any redundant information in the article.
I was not able to fully construct feedback due to the missing examples. However, I the contextual paragraphs indicate that incorporating examples won't be a problem. Overall, this wiki page will be complete with a few corrections!

--Clwang (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review www

2. General Impressions: Good citations
Nice information in the lead, might be a little too narrowly focused on the name of the language?
“Going along with that, the consonant inventories for different locations within a word are more or less restricted and differ.” What? (under phonology)
Nice tables for vowels and consonants --> maybe work on the formatting (e.g. need multiple columns for voice(less))

Some of the sentences in the phonology are confusing.
Maybe add links to certain other topics (e.g. “concordant”, noun classes?) under morphology to the later sections where you explain them

Syntax needs examples

3. Section Evaluations:
All sections are there.
For phonology: really good elaboration on extra details and inclusion of data from practicums, maybe try adding examples to the tone and syllable structure sections

For morphology: The lead for this section gets very detailed, which might be confusing, especially because you discuss things that you define later. More examples would be super helpful (I see you marked that as a note already though)!

For syntax: Probably needs more fleshing out (e.g. add examples, talk a little bit more about complexities in word order if there are any, etc.).

BROAD: Phonology and Morphology are very good at giving an idea and feel for the language. Syntax gives very basic information and could definitely benefit from some more fleshing out.

NARROW: All sections definitely need more examples (except for the consonant and vowel sections).

Didn’t understand:
Phonology: Going along with that, the consonant inventories for different locations within a word are more or less restricted and differ. --> what’re you trying to say here?
Specifically, vowel quality and tone, used to create contrast between the relatively morphologically simple words, were found to differ across dialects and between different speakers --> maybe move to verbs?
“but the vowel inventory does not change depending on the vowel's placement within the morpheme” not quite sure what this sentence is trying to say
“Consonants in the affix are a separate category entirely; but affixes are typically vowels.” Move to vowels
“TO some extent this holds true for verbs as well. However, a key part of verb morphology is tone shift (see MORPHOLOGY) (44).” I don’t know that this sentence is super necessary

Morphology: your lead is really, really technical, so I would consider cuttng it down or making it more broad and let the details come in later.
Are you using terms that are used only in your grammar? “attested syllable types” “semi-rare circumfixes” etc.
What are the three verb classes?
Tone shift section uses a lot of terms that aren’t clarfiied elsewhere: realis, irrealis, tone sandhi, jussive to name a few --> might be helfpul to consider rewriting simpler or more clearly.
What is “verum focus”?
The noun lead is also really specific --> maybe make possession its own section?
I feel like examples of noun classes would help, and also writing the noun class system and concord sections to be more direct and understandable. They’re both very wordy and have long lists of concepts that aren’t really clarified (especially concord).

Syntax: Very clear, just add more.

Organization: I like the organization. The only thing that I thought could be changed is the order of verbs then nouns in the subsections for morphology, but if that’s according to your grammar, that’s all good.

Nothing came off to me as inaccuracies or misinterpretations.

4. Holistic Evaluation:
The information and presentation are good: nice flow, good detail, good elaboration. I think (noted above) there are some things that could be moved around or removed, but the general volume of information is appropriate. More examples would definitely help.

STRENGTHS: content, research, citations, information balance
WEAKNESSES: writing can get technical and confusing, some information could be moved around, lack of examples, syntax section
Wilburw (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)