User talk:Rebecca5802/Tabasaran language

Bibliography

Hi Rebecca, this is a good start but you should be certain to check your references against the rubric I gave you to see which ones count and which ones don't. Most of these references are specifically rejected in the rubric. Glottolog has a bunch of references (https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/taba1259) but unfortunately none are in English. Google Scholar also has additional ones you might want to check out:

1. Piper, P., 1989. Language in space and space in language. Yugoslav General Linguistics (Milorad Radovanović, ed.), pp.241-263.
2. Forker, D., 2019. Elevation as a category of grammar: Sanzhi Dargwa and beyond. Linguistic Typology, 23(1), pp.59-106.
3. Di Garbo, F., 2020. The complexity of grammatical gender and language ecology. in press, The Complexities of Morphologies, pp.193-229.

I would also recommend expanding your search to find out more about the Lezgic languages, the family to which Tabarasan belongs. There will likely be more information about these languages and their speakers in resources on Lezgi.Chuck Haberl (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Final Review

Hi Rebecca, 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:

1. Language: On the whole, the article employs proper English spelling and grammar, although it would benefit from more proofreading. 4 points.
2. Structure: The structure is idiosyncratic and does not appear to follow any template or guideline. There is no lead. 2 points.
3. Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
4. Accuracy: Most of the claims are not properly furnished with citations and of the two sources that comprise most of the citations, one appears to be an article on chemical waste by a man named "Tabarasan," not an article on the Tabarasan language. 0 points.
5. Relevance: The information provided is for the most part relevant. 5 points.
6. Length: Word count 1844/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 4 points.

The final score is 20/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Final Review (Revised)

Hi Rebecca, this is my revised 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:

1. Language: The article employs proper English spelling and grammar, but tends to be unencyclopedic at points ("has one of the most beautiful sights in the world...The Tabasaran culture is known to be very welcoming."). 4 points.
2. Structure: The structure for the most part follows the suggested template. 5 points.
3. Balance: At present, the article appears to reflect a neutral point of view. 5 points.
4. Accuracy: Most of the claims are properly furnished with citations to scholarly literature. 5 points.
5. Relevance: The information provided is for the most part relevant. 5 points.
6. Length: Word count 2048/2000 (including headers but not bibliography). 5 points.

The final score is 29/30. Have a great summer! Chuck Haberl (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)