User talk:Clwang/sandbox

Peer Review
FIRST READ: In the lead, you misspelled close. “Clos”

In the three line glosses, it would make reading easier if it was all in the same format on the page, either chart or bullet points or just as text

All sections are there!

PHONOLOGY: Syllable structure section: misspelling – “possible syllable structureS in Hainan Cham ARE showN…”

The information doesn’t seem to have any gaps

In the Consonant section, you can combine the last sentence about what the “-“ means into the sentence before. So, it can just be “The "-" behind the consonants /p-/, /pʰ-/, /ɓ-/, /v-/, /m-/, /tʰ-/, /ɗ-/, /s-/, /z-/, /ts-/, /ɭ-/, /ɲ-/, /kʰ-/, and /h-/ indicates that the consonant can occur initially and finally.”

MORPHOLOGY: First line – might be more natural if you said that “there aren’t very many affixes”, as opposed to “there are a limited number of affixes”

First content paragraph of the derivational affixes is a bit confusing. The parts when you break up and explain each morpheme is hard to read because of all of the symbols. So could be an easy fix with formatting. It also may make it clearer if you put the analysis and breakdown after the example so we at least have seen what the whole picture is and can better wrap our head around the parts broken down.

I like the succinctness of the reduplication section, so you can maybe follow that template in the affix section

Are there only affixes and reduplication in Hainan Cham? There are no other morphological processes?

Any inflectional affixes? If not, then you should say that there are no inflectional affixes.

SYNTAX: It would help to put the headedness of the verb-object pair

In headedness, maybe put the head final first because that is what it is in Hainan Cham and the disrupted example second. Also the claim that the head initial form is not a natural part of the language seems to be an interpretation. I understand that your grammar may say that but maybe phrasing that in a way that says something like “There are Mandarin influences on Hainan Cham, like _____” might help it seem less like an interpretation made by you.

You also don’t need to put the bullet points after the charts. Just a normal sentence is okay.

So, in the headedness section, maybe start with saying what the headedness of the verb-object pair is. Then give an example of the natural headedness of Hainan Cham. Then you can mention the influences of Mandarin and provide an example.

OVERALL: Overall, there are a few spelling and grammatical errors. There are also sentences that don’t seem complete but I don’t know if that is due to the bullet points influencing how I perceive the sentences. The bullet points are a bit distracting in general to me.

I really like your lead and it provides good, unique information about the language. I also like the detail in your phonology section.

Clairenk (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hyowonl (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Rachel Lim
Lead: Overall a good introduction including a brief history and important stats of the language. One organizational improvement that can be made is breaking each section (history; current speakers; goverment influence) into a separate paragraph for a better flow. Few more pointers: first, explain who's exerting the pressure for assimilation. second, capitalize the word "Muslims." Third, hyperlink the word "Malayo-Chamic" if the page exists. Fourth, include its endangerment level.

Phonology: Two things to note: first, perhaps include a table for triphthongs as well to keep the organizational consistency. Second, include more information about the language's tonal system - for example, why are the tones numbered that way? Seems pretty arbitrary to the reader.

Morphology: Three things: first, because of the unusual tonal system of this language, it was hard to understand the examples. Try to present the examples in a more uniform, structured way? (maybe benchmark pages of similarly tonal languages?). Second, I was wondering if the language has inflectional affixations. Third, add more macro-level comments on its morphology to present a more complete picture.

Syntax: I like the examples that you gave for the basic word order; they were simple and organized. One comment I had is that you should get rid of the bullet points that you put after each head-complement relation table. They look a bit out of place.

Overall: I think you have a great content, and in some sections you go beyond just the bare minimum which is good. For the next draft try to improve your presentation of the examples because as I said earlier the tonal system (with numbers attached) makes it hard to understand them. But overall, good job! Hyowonl (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Rachel Lim