User talk:Ghorsefield/Phonological Rule/APG2000 Peer Review

Hi Gregory. I have finished peer reviewing your article and my response can be found below.

Peer Review: Ghorsefield "Phonological Rule"

Lead evaluation

The Lead of the article does not seem to have been updated, but that is okay given that this is going to be an addition rather than a total overhaul of the existing article. As it stands, I think the Lead in the existing article is sound, as it gives a general picture of what the topic is about and links to several other relevant articles.

Content evaluation

Phonological rules seem to be a pretty technical concept and so I can't say with perfect certainty how relevant these additions are. However, these additions do seem to address an important question that is not acknowledged in the original article - namely, what happens when two phonological rules conflict? I certainly don't think this content would be removed for being irrelevant. And since there is already a section on notation, the new section "Expanded Notation" would seem to fit in quite nicely. It seems mostly up to date, as it cites sources from 2004 and 1991. In terms of missing content, I think the information presented beneath the heading "Derivations" could use some additional filling in. It might help to give an example of how we arrive at a correct and incorrect derivation - is it possible to show how this works in a real scenario? The same might also go for for the bleeding/feeding concepts. I have an abstract idea of how these work but an example would help the reader gain a firmer understanding (if it is possible to include one.)

Tone and balance evaluation

Everything here seems neutral, and there doesn't seem to be any points made that are overtly controversial. It doesn't strike me as biased, since it is a technical exposition. Nothing here is aimed at persuading the reader - the author does a very good job of being scientific in tone.

Sources and references evaluation

Most of the assertions made in this addition appear to be backed up. It might help if specific page numbers were included, although this might be of interest to only more advanced readers. I can't really comment on whether the sources reflect the available literature on the topic, but a glance at the titles of the sources seems to indicate that they are general in nature. As well, I recognize Chomsky, who is undoubtedly a strong authority when it comes to linguistics. All links work to bring the reader to a page where information on the source can be found.

Organization evaluation

The additions you are making to the article are very concise. Your organization is tight and logical, and there appear to be few errors in spelling or grammar. (You might want to check the grammar on this sentence, though: "Given two rules, A and B, and we assume that both are equally valid rules, then their ordering will fall into one of the following categories..." perhaps replace the "and" with and "if"?) The breakdown of topics is very neat and systematic, and also I think it is in keeping with the format and organization of the original article as well. I especially like how you incorporated formal notations in the section Expanded Notation.

Images and media evaluation

Nothing to evaluate here.

Overall, I think this will make a very good addition to the article. It definitely reads like some of the better Wikipedia pages I've come across. APG2000 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)