Talk:Alveolar lateral ejective affricate

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force.

alveolar

I have replaced the transclusion of Template:Alveolar with the relevant content of that template, omitting

(the apical articulation is common in languages such as English, while the laminal articulation is common in, for example, the Romance languages)

Since neither English nor the Romance languages have an alveolar lateral ejective affricate phoneme, that parenthesis is worse than useless, implying that this distinction applies to these nonexistent phonemes. See Template talk:Alveolar#too much info for some contexts. --Thnidu (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit because I think we can simply adjust the template. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Prose Quality

Well-written yes

Structure: yes

Understandable: Somewhat. While many of the terms are described, I feel like they aren't described fully enough for a non-linguist to understand. Take "produced without a vibration of the vocal cords." What does that mean? Would a non-linguist understand that? If they didn't there aren't links to other pages to find out more about this feature.

Verifiability: None.
Coverage of Topic: The article covers slightly more than the bare minimum of information about this phone

Neutral Point of View: Yes

Supporting Material: Yes

Overall rating: Start

The lack of sources and the lack of further content is what kept me from ranking it higher. Working to better explain the phonetic terms to non-linguists, and especially more intrawiki links would go far, but it can't be rated higher until sources are added.

Wugapodes (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]