User talk:Manny.Rod1029/Chiquihuitlán Mazatec

Hi Manny. I have a few suggestions that could maybe improve what you have in your article already.

1. I mentioned this in my peer review but, make sure that your lead is not under the "background" section of the article. I believe they are both the same thing so I suggest moving the information underneath that section to the top where the one sentence at the top is. Maybe also get rid of that first sentence that was there in the original article. Or if you have backed up sources for it, keep it/ add it to the lead; this could also end up being another section for your article.

2. I also mentioned this in the peer review but I think you should merge the sentences "It is an endangered language with only around 1,500 native speakers today. It is a very diverse language and requires a more elegant tone because the language uses a shorter syllable structure." They just seem repetitive with "it is" and could just end up being one sentence. For example: It is an endangered, yet, diverse language with only 1,500 native speakers around and requires an elegant tone due to its shorter syllable structure.

3. (This is also mentioned in my peer review) Lastly, make sure to add a sentence about the "language revitalization" section to your lead if you want to keep that section in your article.

Final Review
Hi Manny, this is my feedback for your final project. As a reminder, the 6 points on which I'm grading you are Language, Structure, Balance, Accuracy, Relevance, and Length. Here are my assessments on each of those areas:


 * 1) Language: On the whole, the article employs proper English spelling and grammar, albeit a bit colloquial and unencyclopedic in places. 4 points.
 * 2) Structure: The article is reasonably well organized, although some of the sections could have been better labeled ("History" is really about dialectology with some editorializing about the origins of dialects). 4 points.
 * 3) Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
 * 4) Accuracy: Many, though not all of the claims are backed by references to the scholarly literature. 4 points.
 * 5) Relevance: Nearly all of the information is relevant to the subject. 5 points.
 * 6) Length: Word count 980/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 2 points.

The final score is 24/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)