I will be the one reviewing this nomination. Sorry that it took so long for someone to take a look at it.
Thanks, I am traveling and will not be able to respond quickly or with sufficient access to literature untill the middle of August.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Seems to have the basics down. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): I'm currently trying to improve this. I think it is decent enough. The manual of style is very big and is too difficult for any one person to review.
a (references): 86+ citations. Very well-sourced, though I still see very infrequent instances of uncited significant claims that I'd recommend be verified or removed if this article were nominated to for . I might be able to find sources during this review. b (citations to reliable sources): Very reliable sources here. The article actually relies mostly on print books written by Danish linguists. The sources that aren't in print tend to be university research and scholarly academic societies. Article possibly over-relies on the Haberman print source, but I think its fine. c (OR): There doesn't seem to be original research, as almost everything is sourced. d (copyvio and plagiarism): The only stuff I saw were mirror sites and popular quotes.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Seems to cover everything an article about a language should. b (focused): All content is topical and the article is organized well so all aspects of the subject can be explored.
Fair representation without bias: Sometimes reads like an essay. Trying to fix. I have improved it to a degree that meets the criterion, though more improvements need to be made if there is a desire to get it classed higher than GA.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: There are some unresolved disputes, at least one involving the nominator, but no edit wars and they seem resolvable.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Everything seems fair as far as I can tell. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes, every last image has a relevant caption.
· 
· 
· 
