Talk:Ottawa dialect/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article. At first glance, it looks very well-referenced and more than broad enough in coverage, and I imagine it'll easily pass, but if I come across anything that needs to be addressed I'll leave comments here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Classification section seems to be more about the makeup of the Algonquian family and Ojibwe subfamily in general, rather than specifically about where Ottawa is situated within it (and why linguists have classified it as such). Would it be better to move some of that stuff to a parent article, and add more here about Ottawa in particular?

I like to provide some context on where Ottawa and Ojibwe fit in (plus the parent articles on Ojibwe need major work I don't want to tackle). I have trimmed and combined the first two paragraphs and added some new useful information on dialect relations. Hope that works. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. You're right that the parent articles have some issues, so we can't just slap a {{main}} template in and be done with it. Your edits so far are an improvement, but I think it's still a bit more detail than necessary...for a reader who's not already pretty familiar with Amerindian languages, it might just seem to be rambling. Personally, I think that of the second paragraph, only the first 3 sentences are really necessary (since they establish that there was in the past some uncertainty over whether Ottawa and its sisters were separate languages or closely related dialects), while the rest of that paragraph and the next paragraph could go. Specifically the stuff I think isn't necessary is

The recognized dialects of Ojibwe are spoken in the region surrounding the Great Lakes, in Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, with other groups of speakers in southwestern Québec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and a few communities in Alberta.[14] While there is some variation in the classification of Ojibwe dialects, at a minimum the following are recognized, proceeding west to east: Western Ojibwe (Saulteaux), Southwestern Ojibwe (Chippewa), Northwestern Ojibwe, Severn Ojibwe (Oji-Cree), Ottawa, Eastern Ojibwe, and Algonquin. Based upon contemporary field research, Valentine (1994) also recognizes several other dialects: Berens Ojibwe in northwestern Ontario, which he distinguishes from Northwestern Ojibwe; Border Lakes, in the Lake of the Woods area; North of (Lake) Superior; and Nipissing. The latter two cover approximately the same territory as Central Ojibwa, which he does not recognize.[15]
Valentine has proposed that Ojibwe dialects are divided into three groups: a northern tier consisting of Severn Ojibwe and Algonquin; a southern tier consisting of “Odawa, Chippewa, Eastern Ojibwe, the Ojibwe of the Border Lakes region between Minnesota and Ontario, and Saulteaux; and third, a transitional zone between these two polar groups, in which there is a mixture of northern and southern features.” [16]

If you think it'll help, I can try to find another editor who's more familiar with this field than I am, to give another opinion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are suggesting, and can live with that. Although I think its retention is still defensible, trimming might help with focus, so I'm good with that. This material would be good as part of a comprehensive review of Ojibwe dialectology but there are no fewer than three superordinate articles on Ojibwe, and untangling that knot would take forever, which is why I have focused my energy on Ottawa. So I'll chop it and stash it for future use. Jomeara421 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Also, there is a statement there for which I can't tell if there's a source. I added an {{or}} tag so you can find it and address it.
• Likewise, the third paragraph of Population movements seems to be more about the Potawatomi than about the Ottawa language.

The external history about Potawatomi and non-Ottawa Ojibwes is important because it has a large impact on modern Ottawa. I have trimmed and combined the previous second and third paragraphs to make them more concise and more focused on the population movements' impacts on Ottawa. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty good now; the connection is much clearer to me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The fourth paragraph of this section, about the two subdialects, seems like it would go somewhere else...I don't see a section or subsection on "Varieties" or anything, but maybe it would be appropriate to make one?

While it could go elsewhere (if there were a good place to put it), it is really the modern outcome of the population movement external history, so leaving it here is defensible. I have added some linking prose to emphasize the connection between this paragraph and the preceding one. There is no other published data on Ottawa subdialects or internal variation. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, the transition is smooth now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the Phonology section (particularly where you list the fortis and lenis stops)... would it be more appropriate to put the sounds in / / rather than [ ], since it's a description of the phonemic inventory?

There is not a straightforward answer to your question. The representation of the fortis and lenis consonants is a complex issue, and what constitutes the correct phonological representation of the two series has yet to determined definitively, so just putting things in diagonal slashes would be a problem since it wouldn't be supported in the literature. I have largely followed the representations used in Rhodes (1985) [a comprehensive dictionary] and Valentine (2001) [a comprehensive grammar], but these do not represent a commitment to a particular analysis of the two sets of consonants. I use phonetic brackets where Rhodes does, and the practical orthography where he does. In my view the question is effectively ducked in most modern analyses. Both of these use the practical orthography to represent the fortis and lenis series – which could be interpreted as implying that the contrast is primarily one of voicing. Bloomfield (1958) implies (without a lot of supporting argumentation or detail) that the fortis-lenis contrast is primarily one of duration, with voicing of lenis Cs in certain environments being predictable. Hockett, in the preface to Bloomfield, disagrees, and asserts (without any supporting argumentation) that the fortis consonants are really sequences of identical lenis consonants, and so are actually CC consonant clusters, analogous with others that occur in Ojibwe – Valentine adduces some evidence that is consistent with Hockett’s view. So I suggest letting sleeping dogs (or Algonquianists) lie, and if I finish with this article I can use the Ottawa phonology article to take another whack at working out these various opinions.

I hope this is acceptable from the point of the review. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Leave it to phonologists to make a mess of everything :). Anyway, I agree with your analysis, and it sounds like putting the segments in square brackets is the most appropriate thing here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Added a {{fact}} tag in Consonants—not sure if that sentence is also from Rhodes or not.
• In Vowels, the sentence "The long e has no corresponding short vowel" .... is it written as "e," rather than "ee," in the orthography?
• No references in the first paragraph or so of Morphology, so I can't tell where all that came from.

Done. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Vowel-initial stems section is written in a somewhat complicated way; I am having trouble myself wrapping my mind around all of it, so I'm worried that a lay reader might be lost trying to understand it. In particular, I'm not sure if the extended and detailed discussion of ndoo- is necessary here, in what is meant to be a summary style overview.

I will try to overhaul the entire topic. It's important because it shows how Syncope has had a major impact on the morphology of the language, but convoluted. I more or less followed the presentation in Valentine's 2001 Ottawa grammar, but will seriously rework it. It will take a while as I am out of town for several days. Jomeara421 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good! I'll list the article as "on hold," pending your revisions. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have enhanced the Morphology and more specifically the Reanalysis of person prefixes and word stems sections by adding a summary at the beginning of Morphology, and by chopping the 'Reanalysis ...' part down so that it focuses on one case of innovation in the prefix set, and refers the others to the published source rather than attempting to go through them all. Understanding the materials here requires understanding the impact of Syncope - I attempt to address this by using examples in short tables with explanatory text. I hope this will suffice, but let me know. Jomeara421 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• In Vocabulary, the sentence "Ottawa has several distinctive sets of vocabulary" doesn't seem very informative to me. Is it referring to different sets of words used for different registers? If not, I don't really see what information it's trying to impart; could you reword or remove it? (I was going to remove it myself, but that would pretty much get rid of 50% of the intro to that subsection.)

Well, that was a little ...meaningless. I have tried to improve the summary prose to make it more useful. There is relatively little research on Ottawa vocabulary distinctives. Jomeara421 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Writing system: "as is reflected in for example the Anglican missionary Frederick O'Meara's publications arising from his work among Ottawa speakers on Manitoulin Island (see image), and Frederick Wilson's publication on Ojibwa"—I don't see how that image reflects the writing inconsistencies, and this sentence doesn't say anything about inconsistencies between the two guys, it just says that they both published some stuff.

I have rewritten this material; the illustration is there just to give a sample of an orthography different from the one used in the article, and the corresponding prose has been revised to reflect its status. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "The orthography used here is a widely accepted writing system for Ottawa"—I would say avoid self-references, but as of now I can't think of any better way to put this.

I have reworded this to avoid the self-reference. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Inline external links are usually discouraged; would it be possible to move this one into a footnote of some sort?

Done. Jomeara421 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The section in general seems to have a bit less internal structure than other sections. I'm not sure yet what would be the best way to divide it up (my general feeling is that the first two paragraphs or so should be a separate subsection from the rest of it).

I have added a summary at the beginning of the section, added a new heading and added text that provides some historical background. Jomeara421 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• In Sample text and analysis, is the analysis and glossing Valentine's, or yours?

The analysis and glossing are from Valentine (1998); the interlinear presentation is my own (he gives analyses in a compact and harder to read format), so no original research. Jomeara421 (talk)

• The References section is quite long and in three columns...of course, it's always good to have lots of references, but in this case it's a bit difficult to find the relevant ones (since the footnotes themselves are written in short form, the reader has to be able to find the full citation in References). Are all of the references in that section actually cited as footnotes within the text, or are some of them just extra sources? If the latter is the case, I would recommend splitting the uncited ones into a Further reading section, and letting References just have the ones that are cited in footnotes (such as Valentine, Rhodes, and the others that pop up a lot).

I doublechecked all references, and broke out unused ones into a separate "Further Reading" section. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• If possible, it would be nice if you could merge duplicate refs (using <ref name= ... >) to make the ref list a bit shorter. I can't tell just how many duplicates there are...I noticed that three or four continguous refs in the early 60s are all Valentine p. 65, and in cases like that the refs could be merged.

I have asked bot operator User:Rjwilmsi to aim AWB at the Ottawa page to help with this. Jomeara421 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. There were fewer than it might have seemed. Jomeara421 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all my comments for now; please respond when you have time. Thanks! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Here's my final review. You've put a lot of work into this article and it definitely meets all the criteria. There are some things that may still need to be worked on if you plan on going to FAC with this (I think mainly the sort of bigger tasks we talked about above, such as large rewrites of the Vowels section and things like that to improve readability), but for the GA process you've definitely met all the requirements.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)