User:Lac414/Batak language (Philippines)/Mh1224 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the work of Lac414.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lac414/Batak language (Philippines)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Lara! Here’s my peer review for you,

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No, no new content appears to have been added to the Lead of the current version of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The existing Lead has a concise and clear description of the article's topic which is the Batak language (Philippines). I think you can add to the Lead by mentioning if the language is endangered, extinct, vulnerable, etc. You could also mention how many people speak the language, whether or not it is a written language and if so, when it was first written, if it is spoken by everyone or just elderly people, whether its associated with a particular religion, etc.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The existing Lead does not briefly describe the articles major sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - I think the existing Lead is very concise, but could use a little more information.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - The content added to this article so far appears to be relevant to the topic. There is mention of what type of language it is, who it is spoken by and where, including a list of specific communities. There is a phonology section with information about certain vowels and consonants. The article also includes a section on pronouns.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Some of the content seems up to date with references as recent as 2013 and 2015. The other two references are from 1961 and 1971.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - This article is missing content such as the history of the language, geographic distribution (official status, dialects/varieties, derived language), grammar (morphology, syntax), vocabulary, and information about the writing system.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - The existing content is neutral in tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, there aren't any claims that appear to be heavily biased in any way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No, there aren't any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - The existing content does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor any particular position.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Most, but not all of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Here's an example of where I think a citation could be added to improve the article:

- "Batak is an Austronesian language spoken by the Batak people on Palawan Island in the Philippines (citation). It is sometimes disambiguated from the Batak languages as Palawan Batak."


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - This article only has four sources/references so far. I think additional sources are needed to improve this article.
 * Are the sources current? - Two of the sources are current, from the years 2013 and 2015. The other two are a little more dated, from 1961 and 1971.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? - Yes, there are sources from multiple different authors.
 * 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.) - I think finding more articles could help you add to this article. Here's a few that I found:

- Tajolosa, T. D. (2012). 3 Predicting the ethnolinguistic vitality of an endangered Philippine language: The case of three Batak communities in Palawan. Asia-Pacific Linguistics, 49. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.693.622&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=52

- Warren, C. P. (2020). Field vocabulary of the Batak of Palawan (Philippines) (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1iMTEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=batak+language+philippines&ots=n7XVXAHosL&sig=Lbsn1Ltp2P0q64mJqKTRxaBMmIA#v=onepage&q=batak%20language%20philippines&f=false

- Gonzalez, A. (1998). The language planning situation in the Philippines. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural development, 19(5), 487-525. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01434639808666365

- Foley, W. (1980). Toward a universal typology of the noun phrase. ''Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 4''(2), 171-199. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Foley-2/publication/263493022_Toward_a_Universal_Typology_of_the_Noun_Phrase/links/5e9db17d92851c2f52b2f0fd/Toward-a-Universal-Typology-of-the-Noun-Phrase.pdf


 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, the references with links are working.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, I think the existing content is concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No, I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors in the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The content that is there is well-organized and broken down into sections, however, some content, as I mentioned under the content section, is still missing.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - No additional content was added to the existing stub.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Some strengths of the content that is already there is that it is concise, organized, and in a neutral tone.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Overall, I think you just need to add more content to the article and I hope that you find the sources I recommended helpful.

- Matea