User talk:Saraphina9666/Dungan language

The introductory sentence was pretty concise and described the language well, the ethnic group was also inputed. I feel like the introductory sentence could've been better, it could've had a little more information about the origin. The lead did include most of the description of the article's major sections, but there could've been a bit more information. It only talked about the ethnic group speaking the language and who the group is related to. Overall there was sufficient information about the language itself based on who speaks it, how its spoken, and where it's spoken. Those were very good. Most of the information was present in the article. The lead was overall very concise, I think that's one of the good thing on this article, so good job on that one. If it included a little bit of the origin it would be perfect.

The content was very relevant to the topic and straight to the point. Most of the content was up to date as well. The topic was related to an endangered language that is historically underrepresented, although the language is spoken by people in China, the distinct people who originates from there (Hui) are underrepresented.

The article is very neutral there isn't any bias toward a particular position, only historical facts are provided in the article. No view points are overrepresented or underrepresented. There really wasn't any persuasion in the article that tried to sway the audience in a certain direction.

I was only able to see one source of information, I don't know if that's because the bibliography page wasn't uploaded, but I was only able to see the source stated in the lead paragraph. Yes, the content does accurately reflect on what the source says, it was also good that there were citations in the article as well. There could've been a little more information added in the lead, I feel like the lead was a little too concise, missing some information. How current the source is is in question since there is no date provided on when the source was published. But all in all it seems pretty current. The only thing is, there was only one source that I was able to find, so diversity of the sources was lacking a little bit.

The content was well written despite the fact that it is missing some information, other than that it was very well written. It was concise, straight to the point, and very easy to read and understand. There were a bit of grammatical errors: "This endangered language is written in Cyrillic. Dungan is a tonal language with influences of Russian, Chinese and Turkish languages. it is one of the few variations of Chinese that is not normally written using traditional Chinese characters and the Hui people wrote their language in an Arabic-based alphabet, Xiao'erjing. In the Soviet Union, The standard Dungan language was developed." The "it" isn't capitalized after the period. There is also a run-on sentence where it says "and the Hui people wrote their language." I feel like there would've been a better flow if that was separated into another sentence. There really wasn't any sections since there only was two points. I feel like the lead only talked about who speaks the language and where it is from. There wasn't any visual representations in the article as well, so that can definitely be added later on.

From, Luke Nam

Final Review

Hi Sarah, this is my feedback for your final project. As a reminder, the 6 points on which I'm grading you are Language, Structure, Balance, Accuracy, Relevance, and Length. Here are my assessments on each of those areas:

Language: On the whole, the article employs proper English spelling and grammar. 5 points.
Structure: The structure is idiosyncratic and does not follow the suggested template or any other model. The lead is far too long and does not summarize the text. It is not at all formatted. 2 points.
Balance: At present, it is difficult to assess the balance due to the lack of citations, but it appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 4 points.
Accuracy: It is difficult to gauge the accuracy of many claims, because they are not furnished with citations. There is no bibliography. 1 points.
Relevance: Not all of information is relevant, and many sections could probably be removed without affecting the presentation of the language. 3 points.
Length: Word count 2029/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 5 points.

The final score is 20/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]