User:JohnWoods1025/Tagdal/Kp6244 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JohnWoods1025


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Tagdal language


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead is lacking information on how many speakers there are or why it is endangered. Besides the information of who speaks it, where it is spoken, and it’s different names and categorization, there is really no other information on the topic. There is a little bit too much information given in the lead about these three topics and they are not presented anywhere else in the article.

Content: Content is all relevant to the topic. Information is currently from 2015 so it would be good to add more up-to-date content. More content on history, culture, and language should be added.

Tone/balance: This article gives multiple perspectives. No significant viewpoints are left out or missing. The content is neutral and takes no sides.

Sources: Sources are reliable and most statements in the article are connected to them. Two statements in the lead do not have a clear reference. Most current source was from 2015. They are in APA style.

Organization: The sections are organized in a sensible way and it is easy to read.

Overall impression: The lead should be developed more for this article. You can take some of the current information about who speaks it, where it is spoken, and the different names and categorization out and create a separate section in the article to expand on that. Some more information on how many people speak the language, why it is endangered, if it is a written language, or some other information can be added to make the lead more relevant to the entire article. To expand on the article you can add sections like History or Phonology. Overall, I think this article is off to a great start!