Wikipedia:Peer review/Ubykh language/archive1

Ubykh language

I read this article and I thought it was really well-written, and I would like to know what others think. --Hottentot 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does say alot about the language, but why does it have the cite sources tag when it has about eight references at the bottom? Astrokey44 14:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to make this article more accessible to a general audience. Most people are not familiar with linguistic terms and should not have to learn all of them before reading an overview of a language. I think you might be able to make the article easier to read without dumbing it down by briefly explaining what the terms mean and by giving examples and comparing them to English. -- Mwalcoff 05:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more, properly written prose. Way too many bullet lists. There's no proper lead, just a lenghtly etymology, which isn't terribly relevant. Sections like "Curiosities" need to go, too. And what's with all the bolding?

I think the sources sign is up because the article doesn't cite them properly. Stating the sources at the top of each section isn't the way to do it.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]