User talk:Jordang1276/sandbox

Introduction My name is Jordan Ghusson, I am a Junior studying exercise science at Rutgers University

Project and Bibliography
Hi Jordan, it looks like you're writing an entirely new article (instead of translating an existing one). If you know French, you can try to tackle the french version:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukhan_(langue)

Or alternatively move your project over to the Sakai wiki, which is for new articles that are not translations of existing articles. A search for Tsaatan on Google Scholar and Google Books yields quite a few potential resources, at least on the culture of the Dukha/Tsaatan, that you missed in your bibliography.Chuck Haberl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jordan! Your article looks as though it needs a bit more substance to it. The last three sentences are formatted in such a way that suggests that it makes up a second and third paragraph. If you want to keep it like that, I would suggest maybe finding more to add onto these sentences and fully develop a paragraph for each. For example, for the second paragraph, you could elaborate on why the younger generation chooses to speak almost always in Mongolian. In addition to, I would probably change how you worded "almost always in traditional Mongolian". Perhaps make it something like: "speaks primarily in traditional Mongolian". Also, in regards to that last sentence, if someone were to read this without looking at your citations, it would be very confusing because there is no context given as to who Dr. Ted Bergman is. That could easily be fixed by saying "Dr. Ted Beran, -insert small blurb about him here-, when trying to request for a Language Code to be approved for Dukhan, was denied approval." You could also add more as to why he was denied approval. What are the reasons, if any, that he was denied? If there aren't any, then that's a bit strange, isn't it? Finally, going back to your first paragraph. The sentences don't flow as neatly as they should. It's almost as if you're just going from one fact to the next, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Try using some more transitions to help it flow a bit neater, and perhaps look into adding more substance to the first paragraph as well. Do you know the approximate time period as to when the language became more of a secondary language than a primary? That might be an interesting thing to take note of. Additionally, is it a written language? If so, do they use the same alphabet we use, or do they have special characters like some of the Asian languages.

Overall, you've got a good foundation. I'd just recommend fattening up your paragraphs a bit more. ToriNaz3 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)