User talk:Clairenk/Puyuma sandbox

Jong Woo's Peer Review

• The article has all the sections it needs

Section Evaluations

Lead

The lead section has all basic and appropriate materials of the language. The section includes the region, endangered level, and number of speakers. It is great that you have added the link to Ethnologue, informing the readers. However, I believe that your lead section could be more informative and interesting. Some of the suggestions are following. The phrase "here is an overview of the Puyuma grammar" could be worded more formally. In addition to that, it would be great if you could explain more about Nanwang dialect. In the section, you have explained that you specifically focused on Nanwang dialect, and I was wondering what other dialects does the language have and how they are different from one another. Lastly, I would recommend briefly explaining what the endangered level of 7 indicate for readers sake despite you have added the link to Ethnologue. Overall, I believe that your lead section is very complete and informative.

Phonology

• Overall, the phonology section contains all complete information gathered for the grammar works and practicums. The entire section is also organized in a logical and intuitive order.

The vowel section is complete, and the vowel table is very easy to understand. However, I do not quite understand the part where you explain how the /u/ becomes a mid rounded vowel /o/ when followed by a velar or a nasal consonant. My quick question is why the /o/ is not included in the table if it exists in the language. It would be great if you could provide some more thorough explanation and example for the case you explained. Other than that, the vowel section is very solid. For the consonants section, the consonants chart is also easy to understand, and I really like how you put subscript v in order to differentiate the voiced from the voiceless ones. Just like the vowel section, I would prefer to read more explanation about the phonotactic constraints and changes in different circumstances. Even though your explanation is straight forward, it would help if you can provide some examples to facilitate the understanding. However, I liked how you went about explaining the constraints and changes, not just putting the inventory by itself. The syllable structure section is very thorough and informative. I think you did a great job not only depicting a clear possible syllable structures, but also provided some comprehensible phonotactic rules in Puyuma. The explanations of the constraints are thorough and additional explanations or examples are unnecessary. Overall, the syllable structure is very solid and complete. Lastly, for the stress rule of the language, the information and rules that you presented are straightforward. One suggestion that I have is that you could present some examples of words where stress is applied just to help readers in understanding. Other than that, I believe that your stress section is solid.

Morphology

• Overall, the morphology section also contains all complete information gathered for the grammar works and practicums. The entire section is also organized in a logical and intuitive order. And, I truly prefer how you put links to the words to enhance understanding.

In the affixation part, you have presented very useful and straightforward information. The inflectional affixes and derivational affixes are easily understandable, and the examples you have presented are also very helpful for understanding. One critical suggestion that I have is that this section could be much better if you could provide some explanations what infixations and circumfixations are just to help the readers. Some additional examples on those two processes would also make the section more complete. You could also just put links on those two processes just like how you did in the beginning of the section. Also for the roots section, it would be great if you could present the examples for each bound root and free root. I have noticed that you put much effort into the clitics section. However, I had hard time understanding this section and believe that the section could be more informative. For the proclitics part, it could be much better if you explain what genitives and actor agreement marker are. And, the examples you presented would be much better to look if you provided the three-line glossary. Also for the enclitics section, I did not have a clear understanding of the aspectual markers and vocative markers. The three-line glossary examples and more explanation of how those markers work in a sentence would make this section better. In addition to that, I could not understand some parts of the examples such as <AV>, em, ID.OBL, VCT. If you could provide a different section where you explain those abbreviations, it would be much easier to understand. Lastly, for the reduplication part, you thoroughly explained what types of reduplication exist in your language. And your explanations of Ca-reduplication and dysyllabic reduplication are helpful. However, once you stated that there are more types of reduplication such as serial reduplication and fossilized reduplication, an example for each type would make this section more complete.

Syntax

• Overall, the syntax section also contains all complete information gathered for the grammar works and practicums.

The syntax section is very straightforward and complete. As I mentioned above, it would be great if you could provide some explanations on the abbreviations such as em and <AV>. I have had a same problem on the three-line glossary example where indentation and spaces do not work accordingly, so the second-line actually does not match with the first line. Revising the example if you know how to match the respective words in different lines would be helpful. For the second or final draft, it would be great if you can present more examples of head-initial pairs just to diversify the section. Overall, the syntax section is informative and includes all of the required parts.

Overall

From my perspective, the information logically flows across the article, so I do not have any specific suggestions on the order of the article. There are no redundancies or unbalances or grammatical mistakes. The strength of the article is that the writer poses some interesting information such as constraints and phonotactic rules of the grammar. One main suggestion that I have for the article is that the writer could provide some thorough explanations since there are some parts that are hard to understand. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the article!

Julie's Peer Review

Overall, this was a great Wikipedia article, Claire! Each section covered all the necessary topics, and all the information appears in the most appropriate sections. The article was generally very informative and well written. I would just suggest having a bit more thorough explanations of examples, because some of the terminology is not readily apparent to me. Still, great job, and I look forward to seeing the final article!

Lead Section

I think this lead section is nicely done, and incorporates just enough information to properly introduce the Puyuma language. I have a few suggestions for improvements, though:

• It's a bit awkward to start a Wikipedia article with a phrase like "This is an overview of..."; I would suggest starting with a fact - something along the lines of "The Puyuma language is spoken in southeastern Taiwan and is of the Austronesian language family..."
• Remember to link to other pages. If a page for the Austronesian language family exists, you should link to it (here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_languages).
• You should also cite Ethnologue so that it appears in the references section.

Phonology

Note on the Vowels and Consonants sections below: nice job including allophony! This wasn't required since it's technically not part of the course, but you did a good job explaining it.

One note on overall improvement: again, remember to put links to other Wikipedia pages. Here are the key words that I noticed needed links: vowel, consonant, phoneme, syllable, affix, reduplication, clitic. (I realize that you do include links to some of these articles later in the Wikipedia page, but you should link on a word's first occurrence in your article.)

Vowels

Good job with the chart and vowel descriptions! Just remember to link to each vowel page as well.

Consonants

"Manner, place, and voicing are all meaningful characteristics for consonant phonemes." I think this sentence is a bit unnecessary, since it's implied as the definition of a phoneme.

Syllable Structure=

"Further, no more than two consonants can occur in a row in a word and they are never part of the same syllable, and a word cannot have VV or VCCV included in it." I have a few suggestions about how to make this a bit clearer. Perhaps consider the following sentence: "Clusters of no more than two consonants are allowed within a word, and the two consonants are never part of the same syllable. Additionally, the syllable structures V.V and VC.CV are not allowable."

Stress

Again, you do a really great job of explaining the details of your language's complex features. I do think this part of the article could benefit from some examples using the three line gloss format. Perhaps you could include a speciifc example showing how the suffixation or the use of interrogative semantics changes the stress.

Morphology

I do not think you meant to say "words as units to create words in a sentence"?

Affixes

Derivational Affixes

These are really great examples of uses of derivational affixes, but I would suggest separating the examples on separate lines just to make the article more readable.

Inflectional Affixes

I think this section would benefit from a bit more fleshing out of the example. For example, I'm not entirely sure what LV means, or how the example represents an affix that is "a marker of transitivity or causativity with specifications for different voices." Maybe explaining a little bit more of what that means and how it applies to the example would make this section more clear to me.

Clitics

Proclitics

As mentioned above, I think this section could benefit from explaining the meaning of a "genitive bound," since I'm not entirely sure what that indicates.

Enclitics

All of the information here is pretty clear and well explained, but some of the examples are hard to read because they are not presented in the three line gloss format.

Reduplication

Good job presenting a lot of information in the reduplication section! I would just suggest possibly breaking it up into smaller parts like you did with the clitics section, since there are many types of reduplication. Also, I think it would be productive to include examples of reduplication from the types you listed in the first paragraph.

Syntax

I would suggest including separate sections for word order and headedness in your final wikipedia page, and perhaps including a few more examples from your practicum. (And the case system, which I know was not necessary for this draft but just a reminder)

Juliekallini (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)