User:Ak1849/Senaya language/Samaraghali Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ak1849


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ak1849/Senaya language


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Senaya language

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * My peer has edited the lead of the original page, adding the necessary components such as why the Senaya language is endangered, approximately how many speakers remain, and more information about the geography and origins of the language.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead's introductory sentence does a decent job with setting the stage for the rest of the paragraph, but it could benefit from more detail and a more broad overview of the language. It could benefit from the mention that the language is endangered, and the sentence is very brief, so there is certainly room to insert this information without overwhelming the sentence with wordiness.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * So far, the Lead includes a brief description of the geographic distribution, sets the stage for the history section, introduces the fact that it is endangered, and mentions the language that Senaya originated from. However, what the Lead does not introduce is the sound and phonology section (that has yet to be written, but I assume that it will eventually be included), the grammar section, and the writing system section (if applicable). I am not sure that the Lead needs an addition of these sections; intuitively it feels like one would expect to read a phonology, grammar, and writing system section if they click on an informational linguistic article regardless of whether it is introduced in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead includes information about the geographic distribution of Senaya, as well as its status as endangered. While this information is not present elsewhere in the article, the article is not yet complete, so I assume that these sections will be added. If this is not an intention of my peer, I suggest that they add these sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise and includes valuable information about the topic as well as about the rest of the article. There doesn't appear to be any extraneous or irrelevant detail.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The only added content was in the Lead, and all of this information was relevant. As for the original Wikipedia article before it was edited by my peer, the "Origin, history, and use today" section includes relevant historical information, but the "Research" section does not feel necessary. Maybe rather than naming this section "Research," it should be renamed to address that the dialect of Senaya is the main topic of this section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Some of the references used were published in the 1950s and 1990s, but the historical information reported in the actual article appears to be up to date. The rest are fairly new and recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As aforementioned, the Research section of the article feels unnecessary, but the information in this section could be integrated into a section regarding the structure and grammar of the dialect.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article certainly tackles an issue regarding underrepresented populations. Senaya is an endangered language, and this article uses the available literature to provide education to the public on this underrepresented topic (and this topic could also use more research and peer-reviewed publications in general).

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content mostly complies with the neutral tone precedent that Wikipedia has set. However, one sentence in the Lead "The language is special as it has significant history that pertains to the area of Tehran, Iran" does not have a neutral tone, as it refers to the language as "special," and this is an opinionated statement. To make this sentence more neutral, I suggest that my peer changes it to "The language has history that pertains to the area of Tehran, Iran." My suggested edit also removes the use of the word "significant," as that does not sound like a neutral word in the context of this sentence.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There do not appear to be any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, other than the easily fixable last sentence in the lead using the word "special" as a descriptor of the Senaya language.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * So far, with the limited amount of information offered both in the original article and my peer's edit of the article, it is too soon to determine whether a viewpoint is overrepresented or underrepresented. The article as it is right now seems balanced in the information that it offers, and does not overemphasize any one viewpoint. It flows nicely from one aspect of the language to the next in the Lead, and the "Origin, History, and use today" section offers a well-balanced timeline of the language.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not appear to attempt to sway the reader in favor of or against any one position.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are no in-text citations, so my suggestion is to cite all information that needs to be verified within the text.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Unfortunately there are no cited sources, so it is too soon to tell.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While the sources are overall fairly thorough, the reference section is missing some of the available literature. I conducted a search on google scholar as well as Rutgers libraries to look into some more available literature, and I was able to find a few more. I will mention them specifically in the question on this page that requests them.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Many of the sources are current and reflect recent studies and data (published in the 2000s and 2010s). Some of the sources are from the 1990s, but these articles still appear to contain valuable information on the topic.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources used (as well as the two I found) appear to be the only available pieces of reliable literature on this topic, and my peer used multiple works of certain authors. They include a historically marginalized individual, particularly Estiphan Panoussi, an author of multiple sources listed who is a native speaker of Senaya, born in Sanandij (where this language is spoken).
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The issue here is not a matter of there being better sources, but more sources. There are more that can be found through sites like google scholar and Rutgers libraries. Licensing and Differential Object Marking: The View from Neo‐Aramaic by Laura Kalin is one peer reviewed article published in 2018 that includes good information about grammar and agreement in Senaya. The morphosyntax of aspect stacking in Northeastern Neo-Aramaic, also by Laura Kalin, is another peer reviewed article offering information about syntax.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked in the Publications section were functional and led me to accessible versions of the literature.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content of the overall article does a good job of only including necessary and relevant information. The Lead is very well-written and leaves no room for confusion. However, the "Origin, history, and use today" section could benefit from polishing and clarifying several statements, specifically the section of the second paragraph beginning with "In the middle of the 20th century..." While the content appears to be there, and it seems to be presented chronologically, it isn't very reader-friendly to the average reader. The section includes a large amount of information, and quick bouncing from topic to topic. Perhaps the second paragraph of this section could be further separated into two smaller paragraphs, split at the "In the middle of the 20th century" point. This new second paragraph could then benefit from expansion and clarification of this information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content does not have grammatical errors, but there are a few sentences that could read a bit better. For instance, in the "Origin, history, and use today" portion, the inclusion of "so that" in the sentence "The Christian community soon followed, so that there are no native speakers of Senaya left in Sanandaj" makes it sound a little clunky and could be replaced with "so" to flow easier. "The two languages developed along different lines, so that the two are not mutually comprehensible" is another example of this. This could also just be a personal preference of mine, but as a reader, this is how I interpreted these sentences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The current content is organized into the sections "Origins, history, and use today," "Research," and "Senaya culture." The article could benefit from dividing the "Origins, history, and use today" into two sections: "History" and "Geographic distribution." The current history section includes information about geography, but perhaps it would be better organized to have a whole section dedicated to it. The article lacks a "Classification" section in the beginning, so I would suggest adding that. Further, there is a good amount of information in the available literature on phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, so the inclusion of these sections are necessary to this article. The information contained in the current "Research" section can be absorbed in one of the sections just mentioned. Writing systems and examples are the final two sections that should be added. Lastly, the short "Senaya culture" section could be interesting and should be expanded. With these changes, the content can be organized in a way that reflect the major points concisely and readably.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content that my peer added in the Lead definitely contributed to the overall quality of the article. My peer included information about the Senaya language's endangerment and how many people speak it today. The Lead now feels complete. Further, the addition of in-text links to other Wikipedia pages was helpful in offering further information about those mentioned concepts. As for the preexisting sections, there is definitely work to be done both in terms of organization and content, but it is doable.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added content expanded on the knowledge already written in this article, and it reflected the information that my peer found in the available literature. The added information is concise and balanced, and there is a good amount of information present. In addition to this, the references mostly reflect the available literature.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The added content could be improved with the addition of in-text citations next to information that requires it (i.e. any factual information). There are currently no in-text citations which makes it difficult for the reader to verify and navigate the information they are reading. Other than this, the content would benefit from reorganization of content, clarification, and addition of more sections.