User talk:347natalie/sandbox

Sophie's Peer Review
All of the sections are complete, and flow in a logical manner. All sections have all required information, along with supplementary information which elevates the article and gives it more nuance.

Very strong lead section; really gives a robust overview of the language, where it's spoken, and the nature of its endangerment.

The first sentence after the table in your consonants section is a little bit confusing and awkward.

The nuance in your syllable with the phoneme ŋ is interesting and unusual. I think an example would be helpful here since that pattern is outside the norm.

The sentence on secondary stress is a little unclear - maybe there's a way to make the examples more explicit?

Your morphology section is super clear even though your language seems to be on the more complicated side! The section intro is really informative, and the examples are great (especially the suppletion table).

The syntax section is also really clear. I would maybe recommend adding a sub-heading for basic word order and another for headedness, just so there is a break between the two topics.

Overall, your Wiki page looks great. Other than the two instances in which I think examples are needed for clarity's sake, everything looks really great. I found it easy to follow along. This might be more of a me thing, but I don't love when full sentences are in parentheses - "(There is no prefixation.)" I would either make this its own sentence or pop a semicolon on the end of the previous sentence and attach. One thing that might make the page a bit more accessible is if you were to indicate what the abbreviations that show up in your gloss mean (like SUBJ or ACC). Sophiersg (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall Impressions
Overall the article seems complete and well-assembled. I especially liked the info you added to the lead (e.g. about being used amongst reindeer hunters), and your general discussion about the speakers and the language's declining adoption amongst children.

It seems to me that all of your sections are present and complete -- you have all of the details about the language that I was expecting to find, along with lots of useful examples. All of the info is presented clearly and objectively and it seems obvious that you are not pushing any specific non-neutral viewpoints.

The sections logically flow into one another and are arranged in a clear, straightforward way. There were no points where I felt lost or confused (although there were one or two sentences I think could be reworded -- see below).

Your general writing style, word choice, and punctuation all seemed to be encyclopedic and consistent with wikipedia's style (minus the one issue with parentheticals I mentioned below).

Nice work! It was a very enjoyable read.

Lead
The lead seems to have a lot of useful and very interesting info in it. Overall I think you did a great job with this part. At some point it might be nice to add a map or some pictures if you can find any, but it's totally understandable if not.

Phonology
If you have any specific examples (e.g. a word or phrase) of the over-short reduction process I think that would be helpful in explaining why they are sometimes contrastive but sometimes not.

For the syllable structures, I'm not entirely clear on which syllables are possible based on the syllable template you provided. Maybe it would be easier to just list the attested structures? (For instance, it's not totally clear if CVC and VC are both allowed, or just one). Some specific words as examples might also be helpful for understanding here.

For the stress section, everything looks great! Your explanations are clear and easy to follow. If possible, maybe add a translation as a third line in your glosses to make it more understandable to English readers.

Morphology
This section looks good. I would remove the parenthetical claim about prefixes and just move it to its own sentence, or perhaps append it to the end of the previous sentence. In general, I would try to keep the parentheses to a minimum, and just write the content into the sentence as a whole (e.g. "A verb can contain up to six or seven morphemes, which might include a root, one or two derivational suffixes, and markers for tense, mood, or agreement of the subject or object" (You can use that directly if you like the way it flows or just write something similar)).

I think I like the way the last sentence of the first paragraph better with the "In addition" omitted.

For your discussion of derivational and inflectional affixes, I really really love the work you've put into showing examples of all the different types. Because there are so many of them, I might try to see if you could make some of them in-line examples instead of the standard 3-line gloss, just to save space on the page. Alternatively, maybe you could put them in a table or something so that the different examples don't all take up a whole three lines vertically.

For your discussions of temporal tenses, it might be useful to either briefly explain the tenses, or link to a page that already exists about them if they are standardized and widely known. For instance I had never heard of the future-in-the-past tense and found it very interesting, but wasn't sure exactly what it meant or when it would be used.

For some of the examples, I might also try to add in little clauses introducing the example at the end of the preceding sentence, like "This phenomenon can be observed in the following word" or "as in the following example", just to help keep the flow natural.

For suppletion, I really really like the table -- I think the layout is great and it very clearly shows all the forms involved.

Syntax
For the word-order, it might help to claim how rigid the word order is. Based on the first sentence it seems like SOV might be the only word order, but you go on to suggest other orders might be okay as long as they are verb-final. I think a sentence early on to explain the distinction there might be really useful to the reader.

For the rest of the syntax section I think everything works really nicely - The examples are all clear and contribute to the discussion of syntax. My comments from the morphology section on the formatting of the three-line glosses applies here too. I feel like if you offset the glosses somehow to make them more clearly an example (e.g. by centering them or indenting them, or adding a line-break after), it might be more immediately visually clear which examples are grouped with which phenomena.

Kattusite (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)