This review is transcluded from Talk:Klingenheben's law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I usually prefer to make small prose edits myself (to save us both time), and only ask here if I have a question, but of course you should feel free to revise or discuss any of those chances as usual. Looking forward to the review! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThaesOfereode, I've finished evaluating the criteria -- great work with the article! It looks like one of my prose clarity comments below has already been addressed; let me know when you've had a chance to take a look at the others and I think this article will be ready to pass! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: I think we're good to go here unless you have any other comments! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks great, thanks for the speedy edits and the thorough article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Earwig looks good, and I'll also check for close paraphrase during my source check. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For clarity, it is possible to provide a parenthetical gloss of "lenition" on its first appearance? Would "(softening)" be accurate...? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so. I hate that term since it's so vague, but honestly, I think I have to accept that the concept of lenition has a bit of vagueness to it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I sympathize, haha. I added "softening" for now, to help absolute newcomers to the topic who might end up at the lead, but if there's a multi-word phrase which you think is less vague, it could also work there to serve that purpose. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This section is one where I struggled to follow the meaning: because of their shared operational position in syllable coda and lenition of coronal obstruents to [r]. However, the law of codas in reduplication creates geminates from velars and labials instead of [w] and, while it has had diachronic effects, it is still productive in modern Hausa -- there are some jargon terms that have not been previously introduced and are not wikilinked (coronal obstruents, [r], [w]) and I'm only guessing what "diachronic effects" would mean here (I think this means it's something that has changed over time). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I think this is settled now. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In "development", this sentence makes me expect a paragraph about their different development and chronology: Despite being clustered under the same umbrella term, these sound changes differed in chronology and manner of development. However, I think the paragraph is actually explaining the elements of sound change that all four have in common. If that's true, I advise moving this sentence to the beginning of "Relative chronology". (Or if I've misunderstood the rest of this paragraph, some other change is necessary...!) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've fixed this one. Again, if it needs further work, just let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• those affecting labial obstruents are partially conditioned where the change in the labial nasal in dialects where it occurs has no exceptions to the rule -- this is a lot to try to follow, is there a more concise or grammatically simplified way to explain it? Would it be accurate to say "those affecting labial obstruents are partially conditioned in dialects where the rule has no exceptions"? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, this one even confused me for a moment. I reviewed Newman (2022) and rephrased accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The linguistic evidence shows that the sound changes occurred sometime after word-medial ii and uu were lowered -- which sound changes? All of them? If so, this should perhaps go first in the section (so that the section addresses information in chronologigal order). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good thinking. Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've completed a pass of prose edits -- you should double check that I didn't misunderstand something and introduce an error. Despite some of my confusion, I do actually think it is overall sufficiently understandable for its intended audience per WP:ONEDOWN. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed your edits and found them both judicious and clarifying without sacrificing accuracy; great work. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The images (and video!) are great and appropriately licensed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, no red flags for RS, and the article relies most heavily on a very high-quality source -- a recent scholarly book on the topic. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For the spot check I looked at cites 16, 26, and 29. They all verify with no issues and no close paraphrasing. I also didn't spot any problems for breadth (ie major topics that got left out.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]