User talk:Ashhhmartinelli47/sandbox

Your article thus far was very concise and neutral. There were some words that unintentionally gave a slight "charge" to the conveyed information (e.g., "share so many similarities"). While only being a lead section, it would be ideal to see an expanded and detailed mission statement regarding what exactly will be explored in the phonology and syntax sections (which I preemptively added to the page). Perhaps you can highlight a certain phonological and or syntactic feature that makes Wunambal distinct from other Australian Aboriginal languages (providing that the literature exists and is obtainable), or even unrelated languages (I see a possible comparison of syntax between this language and some Native American Languages, given they are both polysynthetic). I also changed the language of the article to better resemble other language articles on Wikipedia. This included:

• Hyper-linking to peoples and regions when introduced in the article (giving geographical and cultural context to the uninformed reader)
• Using sentences and words that gave a more linguistic focus to the article (e.g., I changed "The area inclusive of these peoples" to "A continuum of these speakers ranges from...")

Otherwise, the majority of my edits were just changing how the article read. The format felt a little disjointed and too "passive" at certain points. Passive language helps maintain the formality of the article, but does not always lend itself to an easy reading flow.

Lastly, in the References section, the entry with the "AMSTERDAM STUDIES" should be changed to the appropriate letter casing. I was not able to edit it myself for some reason.

Vlongo119 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Good Start

I would recommend consolidating as many of these categories as possible into fewer, but more information rich categories. For example, you could probably afford to lose the Vocabulary sub-section, as it doesn't include any new information that could not otherwise be logically inferred (related languages share vocabulary). Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)