User:Milinpatel1369/Pontic Greek/Mp1700 Peer Review

Lead: The Pontic Greek page has an effective introductory sentence that gives all the alternate names of the language and the various areas in which it is spoken. The lead definitely touches upon the different sections of the article. The first paragraph talks about the names and geography, the second paragraph touches upon the history, and the third paragraph mentions the language's classification and alphabet. This is pretty encompassing of the rest of the article, although it could be divided more explicitly and in a more organized way. The lead is overly specific when mentioning the 1923 population exchange; this information should be placed in the history section, where it is failed to be mentioned.

Content: The content in this article is overall very dense and informative. The classification section is straight to the point, but if there is more information on the topic, it should be added. The name section mentions the different names depending on the region where the language is spoken -- this is good, but there are more regions where the language is spoken that are not mentioned in this section, so it would be ideal to add them. The culture section seems scant as well. The added content seems to be as up-to-date as can be, as the number of speakers was determined in 2018. The article ideally should deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, since the speakers of Pontic Greek are minorities wherever they live. To address this equity gap more effectively, more must be added to the culture section of the article.

Tone and Balance: The added content is neutral and professional throughout the article, and no sentences stood out to me in terms of tone. The article takes no argument and never pushes the reader in favor of a particular position. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented because no viewpoints are stated at all. The history and linguistics of the language are presented in scientific and neutral language throughout the article.

Sources and References: Some facts throughout the article seem to lack citations. The dialects, alphabets, and archaisms sections in particular are not connected to any sources. Overall, the content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say, although there is more information in these articles that could have been mentioned on the page. The sources are all closely tied to the topic -- the linguistic features and history of Pontic Greek. One source is not even remotely current -- it is from 1912, and is attached to the geographic distribution section, which should contain more current information. Most of the sources are written by linguists, and some sources are written in English while some are written in Greek. This range of perspectives makes the article more encompassing and reliable.

Organization: The content is very well written and easy to follow. The use of lists and simple sentences throughout the article adds to its effectiveness. I did not catch any grammatical or spelling errors at all. The sections do reflect the important information about Pontic Greek, but there should be a section dedicated to the current state of the language. If the language is endangered, the article could explore the reasons as to why that is so. The sections that are present in the article are topical and essential, such as dialects, alphabets, and history. However, the archaisms section seems a little out of place, so perhaps that could be integrated into other sections.

Images and Media: The Pontic Greek page currently has no images or media. This article would benefit from having a map showing the regions where the language is spoken or the mentioned Pontic diaspora.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)