User talk:Kang1289/sandbox

Nicholas' Peer Review
Phonology

- Your Phonology Section was very clear and well organized - The consonant section was a little confusing to me. It might help to define/ hyperlink some of the words that you use. - ex. contrastive - I felt that your stress description was very well written and descriptive

Morphology

- "Manchu is one of the most analytical languages in its language family, indicating that it has many derivational functional morphemes and few inflectional morphologies" I would suggest re-writing this sentence - As far as organization, I feel like the reader would benefit if you number 1-5 the different groups of particles. It would help organize your very lengthy morphology section. - I think the different particles should get explanations for why they are being used, not just the 'how' - Your explanations and examples for Reduplication and Pairing Words are very well done!

Syntax

- Your syntax section was also highly organized and clear - this sentence is a little awkward to me "Another basic word order is when the direct object even precedes a subject (OSV)"

Overall

- This page was very well done. I would proofread it again and check for some incomplete sentences. I would also suggest you hyperlink words that are not necessarily common knowledge

Irina's Peer Review
Overall, all of your sections are clearly organized and labelled. You do a good job of structuring the page in a coherent and logical way. One thing that confused me a little when I was reading your page is how your examples are organized: the content is good, but you probably don't need to say "example" before each one. Continuing off of that point, it makes it sound like you're listing facts instead of integrating them into a paragraph. Finally, you should try to include links to other Wikipedia pages when you mention concepts that not everyone will know.

Lead
You probably just forgot to write this, but make sure that you have one in your second draft!

Phonology
Your phonology section is set up pretty well and you do a good job going into detail when introducing each section. Below are some specific considerations:
 * In the first sentence, what do you mean by "literary manchu"?
 * Under syllable structure might want to include what the bold means. Most people will probably understand that you're bolding the important part, but it wouldn't hurt to be explicit.
 * You might want to add a sentence explaining that the phonemes are/aren't IPA notation
 * The example at the end could be more clearly written; I initially thought that ex) was a part of the first word

Morphology
You do a great job organizing the morphology section into clear parts, and they follow each other logically. One thing to keep in mind when you're writing is that you don't need to have simple fluff sentences. For example, the sentence "there are many different derivational suffixes" sounds a little subjective and is not very descriptive. Below are some specific considerations:
 * Maybe explain a little more about what a particle is, and add a link to a page on particles
 * When you use a 3-line gloss, you should try to align all of the respective words with each other
 * You do a good job of going in depth and including detailed information when discussing particles, try doing that for the other sections as well

Syntax
You do a good job of providing a description of the basic word order in Manchu. I also like how you specify which word order is more common and which is less common. Below are some specific considerations:
 * Part of the headedness section seems a little like your own analysis. You said "As it is head final in a verb phrase, head final is more common than head initial in Manchu"
 * This is something that we discussed in class, but isn't necessarily always the case. If this is something that your grammar explicitly said, you should cite it.

Irinal360 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Irinal360