User talk:Erinboateng/sandbox

Todd's Peer Review of Erin's Page
Todd's Peer Review of Erin's Page

Lead Section: Your lead section gives a good overview of the language's importance. However, it does not give too much detail about how the article will look, and it lacks citations, which is an easy fix. Additionally, the lead is slightly off in its placement, but I'll talk more about that when I explain the structure.

Phonology Section: Your phonology section is well organized in its subsections. You provide a good amount of context before introducing tables. You also have a sentence that sounds a little funny: "The sounds in square brackets do not are not seen often in Kilmeri." This should be an easy fix.In the tables, some of the symbols that should be on the right are on the left. I was having the same problem of getting the tables to work right. On my page, I'd like to figure that out and give better context to my tables like you do. Your stress section also reminded me that I don't have one. I don't think my language has one, but I think that it would still be good for me to at least mention that fact.

Morphologic Section: Your morphologic section seems pretty comprehensive, but I think you could organize it better by grouping all of the non-affixation processes into one section. They seem kind of spread around different sections before and affixation, so it might help to keep them together. Additionally, the three line glosses are a little hard to read. One way that I found to make it easier to read is to organize the glosses into tables. It's more compact and easier to follow.

Syntax: The Syntax section is pretty well organized and easy to follow. The chart is very helpful. The only thing that I would say to simplify it a little more is to have word order as its own section so that there is a clear balance, but otherwise it's good.

Wholistic Comments: On the whole, I think the article is in a good place. Most of my comments have been structural. One big picture thing about the structure is that your lead comes after the table of contents, and the table of contents shows all of your other sections as subsections of your lead, so it would be helpful to reorganize that. In general, you strike a balance, neutral tone. I did not see any opinions coming through, so I think that you are quite good on that account. Overall, your greatest strength I think is your explanations, which are quite clear.

ToddSGilman (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Todd Gilman

Nick's Peer review
Lead: I had trouble with both of these as well and i am sure they are a quick fix so no worries!
 * The first two things i noticed was that your lead was below the contents tab when it should be above it. Also, I believe your contents section is not numbered correctly, e.g. morphology should be section 2 not 1.2
 * Good lead with the necessary information
 * if possible add stats of number of speakers that are a bit more recent

Phonology:
 * "there are five (six? if you include one of the rare sounds" this phrase confused me, what are the rare sounds? but i am guessing you are still editing it
 * maybe talk about voicing of consonants
 * "The sounds in square brackets do not are not seen often in Kilmeri" - sentence doesn't make sense
 * vowel inventory and explanation, was very clear and succinct, nice!
 * maybe give an example of stress in the actual language so we can see what the accents look like and how they function
 * phonology section was well explained but i think a few little extra things could be added, as noted above

Morphology:
 * punctuation in first sentence doesn't make sense "Kilmeri makes uses affixes"
 * great structuring of morphology section with sub-heading and further subheading within, very well laid out
 * for inflectional affixation, the example is great, but would be more effective if paired with the simple present tense of the phrase (not the durative), so the comparison can be made between the two, but i understand this may be difficult due to that specific phrase not being in the grammar
 * Morphology section was extremely thorough with a number of great examples and very few errors, very impressed with the amount of content in this section!!

Syntax:
 * extremely clear and great use of example in table
 * think this section is great and very succinct, but maybe improve layout of example of headedness, and have head and compliment in bold above the actual phrase, so that it is clear what is the head and what is the compliment

NOTE: Be sure to add a references section, you have the citation but it is not under a subheading as it should be

Evaluation: I believe your article is going really well and will end up being an impressive piece of work. It is well written, it flows well and has all the information needed. The greatest strength was your morphology section which had great examples and was extremely comprehensive. There were a few punctuation errors here and there, structure of lead can be fixed, some examples could be a little clearer and maybe one or two example could be added, but these are problems are minimal. Overall, great work!

Nickf510 (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)