User talk:Simonle0175

Welcome!
Hello, Simonle0175, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, my name is Sabrina Alexander and I am also a member in your Languages In Peril class. I just noticed you had decided on a language that was very interesting and just wanted to introduce myself while testing out the talk pages. Salexander2796 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review and Copy Edit
Hey Simon,

I looked at the Yaeyama language and saw that you've added a lot of substantial information! I used the question guide from our professor's list and my answer to each question is written next to the two dashes (--)

--I think the Japanese language policy makes it very clear why there is an interest in this language and the preservation of it. --The Japanese language policy section of the lead in should be in another section, I think, because it's more supplemental information, rather than directly important to what we're learning. --No, I think the information is mentioned only once to be relevant and not trying to direct the view of the article to any place in particular. --The history section should be first and then I think there should be a "Current Grammar" section or something along those lines. I think History is too broad a topic and also not the main focus of the language. --I understand that you are probably still editing, but seeing as the only section here is History, I think there definitely need to be sections about the way it is spoken today and other relevant things. --There is a bit of supplemental information about the place of Yaeyama that could be added to a section about the location and its relation to the language, if you felt like there was enough information about that. --I don't think the author put anything in the general article that made me feel like there was a specific sway. --When you use the word 'consequence' in the lead in, that should be changed to 'result' because it is subjective and has a tone to it. In the second paragraph of the History section, you should explain what exactly you mean by conservative because that can be interpreted in many different ways, some of which can be unintentionally negative or positive. --I think you do a good job of keeping what you write on the information and not bringing any of your own opinions or information that isn't backed up into it. --I think it's very neutral because I can't pinpoint any feelings of the language in one way or another. The only thing I might say is you have a couple of word choices (like what I pointed out above) that just make it sound like you regret not having this language preserved. I think that is rational, but it isn't fully objective, so watch out for that. --Most of these are journal articles and reputable websites. One reference I am not so sure about is the 3rd reference in the list because that looks self-published and doesn't have a reputed publisher anywhere. --The sources haven't been updated to a full 8-10 sources, which I feel like this article definitely needs. --The first, second, and third paragraphs of the History section don't have any citations and I think those statements really need to be backed up.
 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * 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?
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

--Like I said, the supplemental information is very interesting. The lead in did catch my attention in the way I believe it was supposed to so you achieved that successfully. --Make sure you have some sources from reputed publishers, especially online. --Be certain that all the information you're writing about is backed up by your sources and that you are citing it all. It becomes iffy when there is a large paragraph with no citation because as a reader, I don't know whether or not I can believe it. --I definitely learned from reviewing this article because I'm going to pay attention to citing my article and breaking up my work into more sections.
 * First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

I hope this was helpful!

Rhea