User:Emartinez203/Langam language/Frenchsilkpie Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emartinez203, Muh tee us?, Brian Del Valle, Lizkants, IntrepidError


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Emartinez203/Langam language


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hey! Here's my peer review:

Lead:

The lead has an introductory sentence, but no other new information has been added. Therefore, the lead is missing information describing the article's main points. However, so far, the lead does not have irrelevant information; it discusses the language family and location of Langam but needs to be elaborated on.

Content:

There is no content in the article itself, but the group's sandbox has prepared a phonetic consonant chart and information relevant to the Langam language. However, no other information is added, especially content such as history, syntax, vocabulary, language distribution, writing system, and any other relevant concepts to the language. I would recommend adding more sections to the article to expand not only on the phonological consonants but on other ideas that make up the language, such as the ones I listed above. However, the article does deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps because the article is designed to describe an underrepresented language.

Tone and Balance:

Since there is no content in the article, there is little to say if the claims are biased or neutral. However, based on the lead and the phonological chart, it appears the group is on track to being neutral in describing the language makeup. So make sure to keep up this trend of not including biased statements.

Sources and References:

The content that is in the article and the sandbox (lead and phonological chart) are all backed up by a source, which is a step in the right direction. The present citations reflect the content that is added after checking the sources. However, most sources are not scholarly; they are primarily random websites with data on the Langam language. The source the group's sandbox used is academic and should be incorporated more into developing the rest of the article’s sections. The references are current within the past few years, which is a strength so far of the article. Most links work, but others require a subscription which makes it unreliable for readers to gain access to the place where the content was cited from.

Organization

Currently, the article has little to judge the organization on. Nonetheless, there appear to be no grammar or spelling errors based on what exists. Everything makes sense and is structured in an easy way to find, understand, and learn from (mainly the lead and the phonology chart). One thing that should be worked on is adding sections to reflect the main points of the Langam language makeup, especially based on ideas that are included in the lead section.

Images and Media

There are no images or media except one map showing where the language is located, which helps understand regional distribution. The map is directly at the beginning (in the infobox) of the article, which is also beneficial to the reader, and it is cited through coordinates since it is a pinpoint on a map. However, the map could use some captioning to help explain its purpose of the map. Also, adding other media resources, such as photos of the written scripts of the language or other more detailed maps, could help strengthen the article to describe the location and visual aspects of the language.

Overall Impressions

The content that is to be added from the group’s sandbox will further advance and improve the article because the article on its own has little information. Adding the phonological chart will help provide more insight for Langam. As mentioned, the article's strength is having a first sentence of the lead that gives a brief overview of the article, especially the chart. On the other hand, the article has room for improvement. The article could add more charts regarding syntax, morphology, or vocabulary. The article also needs more sections in the body and a more detailed lead where the article's main contents are discussed. Additionally, adding more scholarly and peer-reviewed articles will help strengthen the article's reliability. Finally, the “further reading” is a source that the group has used in their sandbox. I would recommend adding this citation into the “references” portion when the chart is included so that it can count as an added scholarly source and delete the “further readings.”