Wikipedia:Peer review/Romansh language/archive1

Romansh language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have expanded this article over the past few months to the point where it seems to exhaust all relevant topics. Of course, it could still use some copy editing and proofreading and I'll probably continue tweaking a few things here and there, but I would now like to get some feedback from other editors. In particular, I would like to know whether there is some crucial topic that still needs to be covered, if things are clear and concise enough (especially in the Language Structure section), and whether or not the article goes into excessive detail in some sections.

Thanks, Terfili (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I only looked it over quickly.

• The sample table giving different translations of The Fox and the Crow doesn't really work on brownsers that aren't maximized, or on cell phone/smartphone browsers. At the very least, the widths of the colums should be made absolute, rather than percentages, but it might be better to have them sequential.
• There were quite a number of statements without inline citations, e.g. "About 10% of all Romansh speakers reside in parts of Grisons outside the traditional Romansh language area.", "Other classifications group Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, and Surmiran together as Rhenish varieties. Surmiran in particular often forms a transition zone between the dialects of the Engadine and the Rhine valley."
• The duplicate links could be cut down---e.g. Durich Chiampell (a redlink) is linked in two consecutive pararaphs in the Origins and development until modern times section. See WP:OVERLINK, where it recommends link words only once per article (although personally I think it's fine in separate sections, as people often don't read article sections sequentially).

Without being familiar with the subject, the article does seem to me to be well-organized and comprehensive. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I've tried cutting down on the links a bit, but I also think that it's fine to have them in separate sections. Especially since many links are to regions or towns most English-speakers will not be familiar with. I'll add more inline citations; usually I simply didn't bother putting in the same citation after each statement, so the source is often the previous or next citation. Pretty much all the statistical info comes from Furer 2005 for instance, who is the prime source for data from the Swiss census. --Terfili (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an inline citation for each section. If a citation applies to the following statement(s), then just put it after all the statements in a paragraph to which it applies. A single citation at the end of a paragraph is perfectly fine. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me... I'm making copyedits as I read the article.  Sandstein  12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)