Wikipedia:Peer review/Jamtlandic/archive1

Jamtlandic[edit]

This article have had a lot of enhancements/expansions/corrections lately, a peer review I think is appropriate at this point. _→AzaToth 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked pretty good to me, although there's no way I can know for certain how accurate it may be. You could try comparing it to other successful language and linguistic FAs to see if it is missing any important sections. I had a minor nit though: my preference is to use the — (em dash) HTML tag rather than a hyphen to separate the sentence fragments. Thanks. — RJH 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently not NPOV, with a substantial amount of work done by only one user (as pointed out on the talk page). Fred-Chess 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has a problem with both (slight) POV and to some extent OR. The article is written as if was intended for linguists: very dense prose with far more IPA and minutiae than is either necessary or useful for an encyclopedic article. The article is also completely lacking any coherent structure. The only general subsection right now is "Features", which is pretty much one of the few headers you're not supposed to use in any article. The rest is about isolated grammatical features that could be covered in just one combined paragraph. It's very nice to see an expansion of Swedish dialects, but it's so far lacking somewhat in quality. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not stated clearly what language this is a dialect of. "Scandinavian" is not clear enough. For all I know, It could be a dialect of Danish!

That's a difficult question, The only language I can find it's a direct dialect of is old norse. _→AzaToth 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Scandinavian dialects are descendants of Old Norse to some extent or another, including the standard national languages. That's what defines all North Germanic languages. In this case, it's spoken in Sweden and is therefore considered a dialect of Swedish. Calling it a separate language is mostly political, though. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page should follow roughly the standard layout of a language page.
All these numbers in the phonetic transciptions are confusing. Are they tone markers? Can they be reasonably removed if the tone is not relevant to the transciption or replaced with accents?
the map of germanic languages doesn't seem pertinent.
"Features" text odd. remove italics.
"other features" should be in text form, not in a list. Also as much as possiblecontrast examples with equivalents in non-dialectal language.

that's all i can see for now Circeus 20:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]