User:Meh259/Ainu language/Paigejaru Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Meh259


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Meh259/Ainu language - Wikipedia


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Based on the lead in the existing article, the only information that matches the draft is that few elderly members speak the language. Besides this, the two leads are quite dissimilar as the draft's lead elaborates on speakers and examples of the language, as well as opining on the importance of the language itself which is inconsistent with the goal of an impartial tone. Not that the two leads have to match, but it doesn't appear as though the information from the draft was incorporated into the main article's lead. That said, I agree with the draft's idea of adding information about the speakers into the lead as opposed to making it a separate paragraph like the main article did, because the information feels relevant and natural to include up front.

As far as organization, I'd suggest putting the "Recognition" section either as the penultimate or final section as opposed to near the beginning as it is now; it feels more like a closing sentiment on how the culture is viewed by the greater majority populations, or bigger picture stuff. I'd move "Oral Literature" between "Phonology" and "Writing" because it might fit more intuitively there as it's kind of a composite of both.

The content is fairly balanced in that the viewpoints of the sources are equally represented, however, the language could be more encyclopedic (especially in the draft) by not labeling things in preferential terms or by their importance. For example, saying that the Ainu language is "important" and "needs" to be passed on to future generations includes unnecessary editorialization and kind of subliminally feels like you're pushing an agenda, as innocuous as it may be. This point also applies to the "neutral content" parameter... my advice is just to be as straightforward as possible, and even if a particular source happens to be an opinion piece or something, you can cite their findings impartially, state their viewpoint, and/or leave an embedded in-text citation to have their work speak for itself.

The main article has many reliable sources, bolded/embedded links, and in-text citations. The draft, however, is lacking in that department (I know it's just a lead, but it'd be good to back up the claims you have there with the sources you've gathered). As it stands, the draft has far too few references, so maybe borrowing some from the main article might offer some sources for information. The main article's use of footnotes is a bit excessive, but being that it's a longer article it does add some valuable information and it's really a personal preference. I noticed more of the data-driven sources than the "Early Writings On..." sources being represented in the article, but that makes sense because the article is heavy on the mechanics of the language. The draft sources are valid, I'd just suggest combining them with some from the main article to make the whole bibliography more substantial.

Overall the content is good, it provides the tools for both a basic handle on the people's culture and the fundamentals of their language. The entirety of the draft's lead kind of sums up three or four different sections of the main article, so I'd use the lead as an opportunity to introduce the concept of Ainu first and then use subheadings to branch off into history and recognition and salvaging the language and whatever else.