User talk:Wedge95/sandbox

The lead section is a little unclear, just because it doesn't seem very concrete, the language is just bit to scientific, for those not in linguistics. As it is now, the article seems a bit bare bones, but it has a solid structure that can be fleshed out even more, with some more research. For this article it may be okay to tease things apart a bit more and briefly define new ideas being introduced. The coverage is neutral, and presents each piece of information without bias. The visual example is great, but be careful since you used a visual from another page, and some close paraphrasing in defining it; even though there is a hyperlink to the source page. Don't be afraid to branch out into the other topics and show how they relate to the core topic, you have gone through the effort of mentioning them, it will benefit your article all the better.

The language in the article is right on the cusp of understanding and complex, that is to say, that those just entering or are new to this field will be able to follow and comprehend enough, but the middle section feels like it may be difficult for those not familiar with linguistics, but it is still coherent and has a clear structure that keeps a nice flow. In now way is this a suggestion to "dumb" it down, but an opportunity to, as mentioned earlier, expand on the different areas of phonemic contrast, without losing focus of the title topic. Using more examples and expanding will help fill this article out.

the sources look good, but i'm not sure about #4, it may help to find more, especially scholarly articles. As a whole the article is well-structures and has potential for growth.Justju21 (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)