User talk:Taj.bell/Emerillon language

Preliminary Review
Hi Taj, I'll be using a 6-point system to assess your final project (details will be released on Friday). The 6 points are Language, Structure, Balance, Accuracy, Relevance, and Length. Here are my preliminary thoughts on each of those areas:


 * 1) Language: On the whole, the article employs proper English spelling and grammar. It could use some minor proofreading ("with Wayampi, a language indigenous to French Guiana" rather than "to Wayampi a language indigenous to French Guiana"). 4 points.
 * 2) Structure: At present there is only one subsection, on Orthography, so I can't really say much about the organization of the article, save that it has the bare minimum of a lead paragraph and a subsection. The section on the name could probably be broken out into a subsection on the names of the language. At the end of the project, you'll want to revise the lead paragraph to reflect what is beneath it. 1 point.
 * 3) Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
 * 4) Accuracy: All of the information appears to be accurate, but not all statements are supported by references, and only three "valid" sources are used in the footnotes. 2 points.
 * 5) Relevance: What information that is there appears to be relevant, although more context is necessary. Why would Emerillon be written according to the French orthography? Are Emerillon speakers also fluent in French? Is French the only official language in French Guiana? This appears to be relevant information, and provides a necessary context to that statement, so it should probably appear somewhere. 3 points.
 * 6) Length: Word count 185/2000 (not including bibliography). This is about 10% of the total final word count, so at most 1 point.

The final score is 16/30, but of course I don't have very much to work with. This grade could go up (if you add more neutral, relevant, encyclopedic content to bring up the length) or down (if you add a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant just to pad out the length). In the long run, it is better to aim for a shorter, better written article than a long but poorly written and heavily padded article. This should give you some ideas about how to improve your project. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a follow up to my preliminary review of 19 April 2021. I appreciate that you have made the effort to incorporate my recommendations in that review and over email.

There's a lot here that would benefit from serious revision. The colorful language in section on the history of the people needs to be supported with citations (either these claims are original to you and you're making them on your own authority, in which case they don't belong in an encyclopedia article, or you found them somewhere but have not properly attributed them, in which case you should provide citations). Additionally, it could benefit from more proofing. The headers for several sections had the word "[edit]" copied into them. The "Orthography" section appears twice. These things need to be improved before you can submit it as your final project. There is also remarkably very little in the article about the language (as compared to the history of the people) which may hurt you in terms of relevance. The rubric is designed to value a shorter, more relevant article over a longer one that lacks relevance.

That's all for now. If you need more feedback, you can email me, but because my employer has put me on furlough Mondays due to the COVID-19 Fiscal Emergency (as we discussed over email), I am unable to check your work or respond until Tuesday. Chuck Haberl (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Final Review
Hi Taj, this is a follow-up to my two earlier reviews. Once again, the 6 points on which I'm grading you are Language, Structure, Balance, Accuracy, Relevance, and Length. Here are my preliminary thoughts on each of those areas:


 * 1) Language: On the whole, the article employs proper English spelling and grammar. I made some minor proofreading changes. 5 points.
 * 2) Structure: This section is much improved over the original, but there is still room for improvement. The words "The Emerillon-speaking areas within French Guiana" appear out of nowhere. Are they supposed to be a caption? As I mentioned, the "History of the People" section contains some information that would work better elsewhere, and potentially be more relevant to the subject (Emerillon language, not people). The article would benefit from more links to other pages (I have made some). You do not appear to have taken my earlier advice on structuring the article. 2 points.
 * 3) Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
 * 4) Accuracy: All of the information appears to be accurate, and there is a fuller use of your sources. 5 points.
 * 5) Relevance: Not all of the information present appears to be relevant, and you have not structured the article in a way to make the relevance of some of your information more obvious. Some of my questions still stand. Why would Emerillon be written according to the French orthography? Are Emerillon speakers also fluent in French? Is French the only official language in French Guiana? This appears to be relevant information, and provides a necessary context to that statement, so it should probably appear somewhere. 3 points.
 * 6) Length: Word count 1149/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 3 points.

The final score is 23/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)