User talk:Mp1700/Kurichiya language

Hello fellow classmate, my name is Eric and I am happy to have reviewed your draft of the Kurichiya language! Right off the bat I can tell that you have fulfilled the basic requirements for the introduction sentence for your lead paragraph. You include the name, location, number of speakers, language family and a basic explanation of its endangered classification. Additionally, you go above and beyond with this lead by offering a definition of the name Kurichiya, meaning "he who took aim" and offer a citation for each of the three sets of claims in this first paragraph. You also leave nothing to opinion, writing encyclopedically throughout your article and with adequate citations where they are required.

A few things that I noted for areas of improvement / items you might want to consider. First, I see that your reference list has a DOI value error which can be addressed easily in the source edit tab. Next I also see that your references are listed 1-4 and then relisted 1-2 rather than listed 1-6. Simple fix. Another note on your references is that while you have six articles / journals / books listed, you only use three in your lead paragraph.

That brings me to my next note, I belive that your lead section is too short and could use some more information. I noticed that you did not include a reason behind the language being endangered or context for its classification as endangerment. You list the prevalance of Malayalam as a force behind this endangerment but I would like to know more about what that is and why it is reducing the number of speakers in Kerala. I also wondered where exactly the Wayanad district of Kerala, India was. A map is not provided and a brief verbal description of the region may be useful for readers.

Citation needed for your final claim "The two dialects of Kurichiya, Kunnam and Wayanad, are no closer to each-other than they are to Malayalam" in addition to a slight revision to this sentence. You list three dialects but refer to them as two. Here I might also ask for more context and definition of these dialects and their relationship to Kurichya.

Follow their lead: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?:

This is an area I think you could expand upon, why is the Kurichiya language important to, what makes it an endangered language and what efforts are being done to preserve it.

A clear structure: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

I think you could establish a more concrete structure in this lead paragraph and include more information on the vocabulary that you use. Like I mentioned I am unclear about the context of its endangerment and the role of other dialects in this family.

A balancing act: Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

Here I might ask about the phonology and structure of the language as there is no information given on this. I also wonder how else you might use your sources to inform the reader about the Kurichiya people without straying beyond the lens of the language.

Neutral content: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? (You shouldn't be able to).

You write encyclopedically throughout. Aside from a brief citation and revision on your last sentence I think that you fufill the neutrality of language in this article.

Reliable Sources: Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

From what I can tell, your sources are all recent (within the last 40 years) and relevant as well as academic. I suggest you dive deeper into the topic and sources with more info on the language and its structure, but as far as your references go I believe you have a strong start.

I hope you have found my peer review helpful and I wish you good luck in your project. Best wishes, -Eric

Final Review
Hi Manisha, 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. 5 points.
 * 2) Structure: The article largely follows the suggested template. 5 points.
 * 3) Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
 * 4) Accuracy: Most claims are furnished with citations and most citations lead to reputable scholarly sources. 5 points.
 * 5) Relevance: Not all of information is relevant, particularly the history section, which focuses on the history/ethnography of the people rather than the history of the language they speak. 3 points.
 * 6) Length: Word count 2038/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 5 points.

The final score is 28/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)