Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

..."Ottawa language" passed Good Article about a month ago and I am interested in taking it to Featured Article. Ottawa is a prominent dialect of Ojibwe, an indigenous language of eastern North America. I think the article is reasonably comprehensive - the one component I could add would be audio recordings, but it will take a while to get access to a fluent speaker. When describing linguistic features of Ottawa I have tried to present elements that make Ottawa distinctive. I have tried to make as much of the article as possible understandable to non-linguists and non-specialists in Ojibwe but inevitably some sections are more complex in that regard, in particular "Phonology" and "Grammar" - I would be interested in advice on how to maintain readability particularly in the places that might be challending for non-specialists.

I have tried to avoid including material that overlaps with the general "Ojibwe" articles, which are of variable quality and have some organizational problems, but there are probably places where there are bits and pieces that could be excised or cross-referred to other Ojibwe articles. I have Split several sections, notably Phonology and Morphology, so that some of the 'heavier' prose has been booted out to those articles, and I will try and work them up later. Sooo, any suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks! John Jomeara421 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V.

These have been cleaned up. John Jomeara421 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What makes http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=otw a reliable source?

I have restructured the entry for this site clarifying that it is the companion web site for a published enyclopedic book that is the standard source for general information about languages. It's not perfect (when you have some 7000 entries, including many for poorly documented languages and dialects, it's hard to be perfect) but it is the most widely accepted source. John Jomeara421 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re your second question... Ethnologue is a pretty widely accepted source for basic language information. That doesn't mean everyone agrees with it (they're linguists, so there are plenty of people who argue with the ways Ethnologue has divided up languages, etc.), but it is pretty much the standard source (and if people want to disagree over something, Ethnologue is what they disagree over). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article that seems pretty well done. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• If at all possible, could there be an image in the upper right corner of the lead? Perhaps a photo of some native speakers or the map?

I've experimentally moved the map up to the top; an editor very kindly contributed a scanned page from a 19th century book by an Ottawa speaker, which I place in the 'Grammar' section. I tried it out up at the top, but something non-verbal looks better.

• This is is a matter of personal preference, but I always think the lead reads better with as few references as possible - since the lead is a summary of the rest of the article, all the refs should be repeated there anyway. Quotes or extraordinary claims should be cited even in the lead in any case.

• The lead needs to be cleaned up, and I've started to work on that. It makes to write up the lead properly after everything else is in place. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are places in the article that need to provide context to the reader - for example I might add either US and Canada or at least North America to the first sentence - not everyone is as familar with US states and Canadian provinces. So perhaps something like Ottawa (also spelled Odawa) is a dialect of the Ojibwe language spoken in southern Ontario in Canada and northern Michigan in the United States.[1]

• I've cleaned that one up, and will look for other places where context could be improved. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, and nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Rama and Curve Lake seem to only be in the lead. The etymolgy of the word Anishinaabe also seems a bit too detailed for the lead.

• OK, have taken out Rama/Curve Lake references (not needed anyway) and have moved the detailed analysis of the names elsewhere, leaving a shorter sentence behind. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the writing system is not there that I can see. Please see WP:LEAD
• The map shows a prominent area of apparent native speakers in Oklahoma and nearby states, but this is not mentioned in the article per se - only in the infobox, map caption, and a note.

• I have incorporated text on Oklahoma, supported by a reference. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think in places where it is clear only part of a sentence is quoted, you do not need to show elipsis The relatively low degrees of mutual intelligibility between nonadjacent Ojibwe dialects led Rhodes and Todd (1981) to suggest that Ojibwe "...could be said to consist of several languages...".[13] could just be led Rhodes and Todd (1981) to suggest that Ojibwe "could be said to consist of several languages".[13]

• OK, done. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The hardest standard for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, professional prose. This reads decently, but needs some work. One example: Ottawa communities for which the most detailed linguistic information has been recorded are Walpole Island in southwestern Ontario near Detroit, and Wikwemikong on Manitoulin Island, with lesser amounts of research conducted at Cape Croker and Saugeen (both on the Bruce Peninsula south of Manitoulin Island).[16] This needs to make clearer that all of these places are in Ontario and repeats things needlessly, so perhaps something like Ottawa communities for which the most detailed linguistic information has been recorded are all in Ontario. The two most researched are Walpole Island in the southwest near Detroit and Wikwemikong on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron; soth of the latter on Bruce Peninsula are Cape Croker and Saugeen, each with lesser amounts of research.[16] Still not great, but provides more context and hopefully flows better.

• Thanks for the suggestion, I have revised that sentence accordingly, and will look for other places that need similar first aid. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If Chippewa is another name for the dialect, should that be in the lead?

• It's not, but the evident lack of clarity around the fact that some Ottawa speakers call their language "Chippewa" needs to be straightened out. I will work on that. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs more references, for example the 5 syncope points in Phonology have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

• Yikes, I think referencing for that section was neglected because it ended up as a summary for material that was moved to a separate article. I've furnished the requisite citations, and have gone through the entire article so now think that everything that needs to be referenced is now covered appropriately. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Internet refs STILL need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. ((cite web)) and other cite templates may be helpful. See current refs 21-26 (no publisher or aquthor or date if known) and ref 91 (not even a date). These would be problems at FAC. See WP:CITE and WP:V

• OK, I had the full citations in the "References" section but put all web citation details in the footnotes to remove any ambiguity. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those comments look very helpful. I will go through all of them and see how to improve the article. BTW, I did also peer review an article that had been languishing: Wikipedia:Peer review/C. Rajagopalachari/archive1 Jomeara421 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thaqt and glad my comments were helpful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]