User:Amaciejczyk/sandbox

Draft Still working on these parts of my draft

Phonology
Phonological features frequently heard throughout the area include ...

Third-person Singular zero

absence of h-dropping

/ɐ/ as in first pronounced {fust}

/ʊ/ as in stone pronounced {stʊn}

/a:/ is a very front vowel unlike London English, where it is a back vowel

/p, t, k/ are more glottalized as in baker, paper, or later pronounced {bæikʡə}, {pæipʡə}, and {læitʡə}

Week 9

Article evaluation
 * I chose the article East Anglian English
 * I think one of the first things I will do is describe more of about the area included in East Anglia.
 * I also hope to be able to add a lot more info to the vocabulary sections as well as some grammar and IPA or lexical information if possible.
 * so far my bibliography consists of these websites, and I hope to get to the main library to pick up the book East Anglian English to begin more research this week.
 * http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-use/east-anglian-english/
 * http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook?sid=dc72f5f3-2d80-4750-89a6-c74d36ef69eb%40sessionmgr4009&vid=0&format=EB
 * http://www.cultureofthecountryside.ac.uk/resources/east-anglian-dialect-and-local-terms
 * https://boydellandbrewer.com/east-anglian-english-hb.html
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=2gStJxbtTnkC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=east+anglian+english&source=bl&ots=ws36zHavWS&sig=2r8uNv0D1dDSFuFnJWcyDqRDP28&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB8p_Sk9XZAhUIiFQKHTe-BV8Q6AEIigEwCg#v=onepage&q=east%20anglian%20english&f=false
 * http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/what-s-on/never-ever-feel-ashamed-of-an-east-anglian-dialect-1-4941861
 * http://dialectblog.com/2012/01/07/new-england-east-anglia/
 * https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-medieval-english-theatre/01908573F7FFBDF99DBAB893CF6CD394
 * please keep in mind that this is just a short outline of the references I plan to look at and may include more or less in the future once I have gathered more information.

The article is Cajun English
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? no it all pertains to the topic presented.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article appears to be neutral and I do not see any biased opinons
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links do work for the citations, however I do feel like there needs to be a few more citations. the information in the introduction does not appear to be common knowledge, so I think that more citations are needed.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? No see above for more information. it also appeared to have information referenced from a blog
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? there could probably be a lot more information added from more sources, the article appears to be incomplete.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?it seems like some of the conversations were a little mean like asking the person who made the article what the point was. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that you don't have a point, you are just presenting well established information in a free way to the public, not persuading the public by making a point.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? it is rated as start-class and as low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? we have not talked about this in class yet, so I don't really know how to answer this question.

Peer Review by Mbooneroberts for ANTH 383
Hi! I think that you have a really good start here for your article. I would spend a little time cleaning up your first paragraph about the area and its dialects. Maybe try to find a source that gives at least a rough outline of where the boundaries of East Anglia lie. The easiest way to do this might be to find how the political boundaries are drawn for this region, but that's just an idea.

I really like the table, and I think it helps to illustrate this variety of English in a very clear way.

Overall, great work!

Thank you for your review, I too was trying to find a better source to determine the boundaries, but the issue is that most linguistic groups don't agree on the boundaries of East Anglia, but the other areas still have East Anglian English features, which is why I included them. I felt the easiest way was to separate them as I did in my introduction so that the areas that are not always agreed upon are still present. Unless I can find a much better source, then I will continue to leave it the same way.