User:MystifiedMysti/Squamish language/Isand4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Squamish language


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MystifiedMysti/Squamish language - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Squamish language - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Updating and improving a Wikipedia article is not easy. This is especially true for topics that are particularly obscure or dense. I hope this review can be useful. I have no doubt the final article will look great.


 * The lead section is easy to understand, balanced and brief, but not to a fault. This is characteristic of the rest of the article, as each section, though detailed, manages to keep from getting bogged down in detail.
 * The incorporation of visual elements in this article is exemplary. The use of charts in the sections on orthography, grammar, and phonology allows for information to be communicated in a concise and intelligible manner.
 * I like how it is indicated how the article on the Squamish language is part of a series on the Squamish people. I’d like to include something similar in the article I am working on.
 * I noticed that many of the statistics and figures included throughout the article are cited from recently created sources. Newer figures are often more credible and help ensure neutrality and objectivity when trying to write on historically marginalized populations.
 * I like how detailed the phonology section is. The use of charts to identify and categorize phonemes is commendable. I am hoping to construct something similar in the article I am working on.
 * With regard to tone, some sentences can be re-written so as to increase the intelligibility of the content and accessibility of the article as a whole. The lead, due to its structure and function in a Wikipedia article, ought to be the primary object of improvement. Making the information already present on the article, in addition to the new information being drafted in, will help make the article, as a whole, more accessible.
 * I like how references to interesting details surrounding the history of the Squamish language are included in the article. I would like to see more sections throughout the article. This will allow greater freedom in writing and expanding on ideas and topics related to the Squamish language.
 * I am of the opinion that a reorganization of certain categories is in order. I would suggest collapsing “Documentation” and “Use and language revitalization efforts” under a greater, more general category.