User talk:Fgmacintosh/sandbox

OVERALL THOUGHTS I found your article to be really clear and easy to follow! The information seemed balanced and extremely concise. If anything, I feel like you could embellish the page a little bit more to make the writing flow a little better.

LEAD SECTION A very interesting lead section, which provided critical context for the language itself. You could likely incorporate a little more historical context (particularly for the conquest of the region) but overall it doesn't need much added. Well done!

PHONOLOGY SECTION This section felt sparse, but only insofar as you state the relevant information and nothing else – so not really a problem. It feels like you could provide a little more explanation of how stress is used in the language, if such information exists.

MORPHOLOGY SECTION You use a lot of complicated terminology, particularly in this section (But also across most other sections). I think it might help your reader if you either add more links to other wikipedia articles, or provide a little more explanation for some of your terms (especially ones that were not talked as much about in class).

SYNTAX SECTION Very clear! Well structured, I was totally able to follow it and didn't feel that much information was missing. I really liked the statistics for word order, although I'm not sure if that information is strictly necessary in your article.

Smmlhck (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
The lead section of your Wikipedia page was very detailed, and provided a stable framework for the page, but, rather than only stating how many speakers speak Soteapanca, it may be better to also state how endangered the language is itself, as you mention to sister languages that are severely endangered, but the scale of which Soteapanca is endangered is slightly unclear.

The only improvement I see that could be made to the Vowels and Consonants sections of Phonology would be to clearly state how many Vowels and Consonants there are in total, perhaps two totals (one with, and one without, restricted phonemes). The rest of the Phonology section is fairly straightforward and to the point.

In the Morphology section, three categories of suffixes are listed and identified, but to better help the balance of information in this section, perhaps you can do the same for the five functions seen alongside these three categories in the suffix chart. Other than charts, and a brief sentence of background for each said chart, there is not much other information provided. If there are are any grammatical rules to proclitics, enclitics, or any other information that can help lengthen these sections, it would be beneficial to include them here.

The Syntax section was extremely detailed and informative, and was just a lovely section overall. I was not uncertain or confused once reading this section, and the many examples provided, especially the chart of usage of each word order, were very intriguing and notable.

Overall, I enjoyed reading your Wikipedia page, and the Syntax page in particular. The only improvements that could be made, were slightly better orientating and more information provided than the brief, straightforward information sometimes provided in the page. If possible, perhaps aiming for content that mimics that of the Syntax section, in providing thorough information and relevant examples in the sections where possible and relevant, would improve the above sections. Jspruill (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)