User:Ewr27/Shipibo Language/Hss86 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Ewr27


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Shipibo language - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Shipibo language - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
* peer reviewing the original article*

Lead: The lead clearly states who the language belongs to and how many people speak it, and where it is predominantly spoken. The lead does not describe the articles major sections, but it clearly describes the articles topic. The lead is concise and does not hold any information that is not written in the article. The lead is too short, and could use more information, background, and more of what is to come in the rest of the article.

Content: The content is relevant to the Shipibo language, the content is relatively new with the most recent reference being from 2005, "a Theoretical Aspects of Panoan Metrical Phonology: Disyllabic Footing and Contextual Syllable Weight. Ph. D. Dissertation. Rutgers University". All the content presented is relevant and nothing seems to be missing from the bibliography. The article does not address the underrepresented minority of the region, the only representation present is three attested dialects of the language.

Tone and Balance: The content added is neutral and does not hold a bias towards one position, the content is more related to phonology and syntax than anything else, so there is no under/overrepresentation in the article.

Sources/References: The sources and references is backed up by multiple reliable sources and thoroughly describes the topic at hand. The sources are not current, the most recent source available is a PhD dissertation that was published in 2005. The sources have reoccurring authors and researchers, and the references do not really hold a diverse spectrum of authors with only 6 authors, 3 of which are referenced more than once. The links work well.

Organization: The content is well written and easy to read, it is well organized with no grammatical mistakes.

Images and Media: The images are well captioned and it also help further our understanding of the language. The images relate to the content written. They are placed nicely and follow the Wiki guidelines.

Overall impressions: My impression on the article is positive, it is a well structured article, it is lacking in the content section. There is not enough information about the history of the language. The article only contains a brief introduction of who speaks the language then goes into the languages phonology. There should also be more of a variety of sources, if there are any more of course. The article is incomplete and need more information, but the structure and content is concise, neutral, and is relevant to the topic.