User talk:Jrq8/sandbox

Peer Review

Hi, this is Tammy. You have a lot of work done already and I got many hints from your page. The whole article is really good that the sections you have are organized well, in a sensible order, you have a neutral content as well, and statements in the article are connected to a reliable source. Your lead paragraph is good, I just think it could be longer to cover more of the following paragraphs such as grammar and relationship with Spanish. Overall a really good job! Tammy083 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Hi. I want to first congratulate you on the wealth of sources you've managed to gather. You clearly have all of the resources necessary to make a stellar article on Piapoco.

I want to breakdown my critiques of your article by section, beginning with the lead. You provide the right amount of introductory information, but you can probably phrase it better. For example, instead of letting us know that Achagua and Tariana are also branches of the Arawak language family, consider initially telling the reader the region in which the language is spoken (and who the speakers are) in a concise way.

I like the geography and background section. Though I (personally) think "History and Geography" is a cleaner way of conveying the same idea. The only thing about this section I disagree is the word "others" at the end of the last sentence. I think you've made it clear enough without that!

In the grammar section, are you trying to say that the known words of Piapoco are derived from a dictionary written for the expressed purpose of translating plant names? I'm a bit confused here. -Beginning of last sentence says "The are..." whereas I think you meant to say "There are..."

The last sentence within the section "Bilingualism" seems like it is applicable to many languages. Perhaps describe how this phenomena is occurring in the Piapoco language specifically.

Your references are mostly strong! I think you've done an excellent job so far and can easily transition this into a 10/10 article! Good luck Tjr128 (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

You seem to have developed a really strong bibliography, which is really impressive considering some of these languages are very hard to find articles on so really great job with that! Everything seems to be organized in a well read and strong manner, looking at yours actually really gave me a good feel of what I should be doing for mine! The topics that you are discussing are relevant and necessary for the understanding of the knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeytonSardanis (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello this is Jordan. I really enjoyed reading your article and how you presented the information. The article is very knowledgeable but doesn't lose the reader in a ton of filler information. I especially liked the bilingualism section as it informs the reader of something entirely unique to this language. I thought everything you wrote was very important to the topic and was very valuable. To improve it just a little bit, I think it would be good to add more onto the leading section and geography section. The leading section does a good job of summarizing almost everything you mention so far but it could use a little more information to really inform the reader with your final article. The geography section did its job in explaining exactly what it is intended for, but it could also use a little more meat on its bones. People are typically very interested in where languages exist and where they originated. Elaborate more on these things to help people get a better idea of the locations and people that speak this language. Overall this is a really great base for an article and it's headed in the right direction! JordanUzdanovics (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:8100:B4D5:992:FB0B:CC58:6230 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi, this is Joyce. I just fixed a small typo in your sandbox (Theee → These) and changed the subject of the article to be in bold. It seems like you found some really thorough and detailed sources about the grammar of your language! You could probably find enough information in these to make subcategories in your grammar section. You could also hyperlink some of the words in your article to other related Wikipedia articles, like "endangered language" or some linguistic terms. This is just a creative suggestion, but it may help your article seem more engaging if you include some pictures of the area where the language is spoken or even of the speakers.

I am not sure why but a lot of your sources seem to be repeated multiple times in the references section. When you cite your article there is an option to use a pre-existing citation. If you did not use that option before, maybe it will help the issue? The fact about Piapoco being a Spanish nickname for 'toucan' was really interesting, but I did not think it was very pertinent to bilingualism in the Piapoco people. I also think it might help if you tie the last two sentences in the 'Bilingualism' section back to the Piapoco language to help it flow better. It is very important and relative, but it seems to stand alone as a general linguistic phenomena right now.

I thought your article had an informative lead, offered a neutral perspective, and was well-balanced from what you included so far. I think it will turn out really in-depth and informative when you create the final draft! Jis65 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)