User talk:Aanteneh/sandbox

Janie's Peer Review
LEAD

Good lead section with interesting background info. The content is good, but I think that the second paragraph could be rephrased so that it reads more smoothly.

PHONOLOGY

Solid section. The three charts are very nice and convey information in an easy-to-read way. Maybe the diphthongs (also typo here) could be listed out.

I also think that the block of examples that start with “vowel —> long high vowel” could be spaced out or broken up to make it clear which examples are separate, since it’s a little confusing as is.

Also, adding an example for stress patterns would be helpful: one for the general rule of stress being applied only to vowels, and then another to illustrate the usage of falling pitch contour.

MORPHOLOGY

Thorough morphology section! I think you could add in a sentence about what type of language Jingulu is (e.g., agglutinating, synthetic, etc).

The layout could also be reworked to be a little easier to read, using indentations or perhaps putting some of the information into table form (for example, the three different nominalizing affixes could be put into a table with the following three columns: "Affix", "Function", "Example"). Differentiating summarizing sentences from examples would be especially helpful.

SYNTAX

Putting “S” “O” and “V” above the six different examples in their corresponding places would be helpful for the reader. Alternatively, all of this could be put in table form!

Also, adjusting the spacing between the different words in your glossing examples so that corresponding words line up under each other would be helpful.

Overall, article looks great!

Bluefeather98 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead
The lead section provides all of the basic materials making the section complete. I am very interested how you explains a brief history of the language and how it is a part of West Barkly language family with other languages such as Wambaya. I have a few suggestions that you might want to consider. First, you could briefly explain how Jingulu is different from other languages in the same family. Also, you could provide some more specific information about Mudbarra and Kuwarrangu to facilitate the understanding of the readers. The picture to show geography, as you mentioned, would also be great to make the section more informative. Overall, if you make those revisions, I believe that your lead section would be more interesting!

Phonology
For the vowel section, you have presented a clear vowel chart that is easily understandable, and I found it very interesting how there is an orthographic convention of long high vowels. Also, the examples you presented really help in understanding. One suggestion that I have for this section is that you could explain more thoroughly about the orthographic convention, since it could be not readily understandable for some readers. You could explain what it means by orthographic convention. For the consonants section, the chart is very straightforward, and there is nothing very particular about this section. I think it would be great to add some more particular traits about the consonants of the language if there are any. But if there aren't, I believe that the consonants section is very solid. I found your syllable structure section to be very unique in that there is a component called 'L' which is a highly sonorous consonants. Even though the table you created is straightforward, I would really prefer if you could provide more thorough explanations on some of the vocabularies you are using. For example, I had hard time understanding what is the actual function of L, glides, and liquids. One way to do this could be putting the link to the vocabularies to another Wiki page just to enhance the understanding of the readers. In addition to that, I believe that the part where you explain what C V stand for could be unnecessary. Overall, if you explain more about the consonant clusters, the section could be more complete. Lastly, the stress section is very easy to understand and there are no significant suggestions that I want to provide. One small revision could be adding some examples to facilitate the understanding.

Morphology
I personally believe that your morphology section lacks some explanations about the terms you use. In the non-derivational section, you could explain what nominal actually is and how/why it is used. You could also explain what case markings are. Also, I had some hard time reading your 3-line glossary since it did not have a proper indentation/spacing. Your derivational section and reduplication section are straightforward and informative. Another suggestion that I have is to have a part explaining the case/agreement section for the second/final draft. Overall, if you could provide some thorough explanation about the non-derivational section, the morphology part would be better!

Syntax
I found it very interesting that your language does not have any basic word order. However, I am wondering if there is absolutely no preference in the word order. It could be great to mention there aren't any preferences. In addition to that, for the three-line glossary examples, I have had a same problem where indentation and spaces do not work accordingly, so the second-line actually does not match with the first line. Revising the example if you know how to match the respective words in different lines would be helpful. After explaining the free word order, you explained that adverbs are one of the few word types that hold a strong preference and questions words also are not free-order. And, it would be great if you could provide some examples of those two cases. For the headedness, I have no suggestions in that the section is easily comprehensible and that there are no constraints or rules. I also preferred how you provided explanations of the abbreviations you used!

Overall
To conclude, the article has a logical flow of information and smooth transitions among the sections. I could not find any redundancies or unbalances. One great strength that I have noticed reading your article is that the writer poses very diverse examples that really help readers to understand the materials. One critical suggestion that I have for the entire article is that the writer could provide more thorough explanations for some parts that I have mentioned above. Overall, the article was very complete, and I truly enjoyed reading it!