Talk:Nizaa language

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nizaa language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PharyngealImplosive7 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pineapple Storage (talk · contribs) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pineapple Storage Looking forward to working on this! Just two tips that I have noticed new reviewers sometimes struggle with:

1. It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
2. It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas".

IAWW (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IAWW, thank you for these tips! I was actually just about to add TM:GAList2, so I will add the template below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to your comments. IAWW (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review! This is also my first GA nomination. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pineapple Storage You are reviewing really well. I added a few thoughts below, but you are doing a great job of checking every criteria and engaging well with the content of the article. Feel free to keep pinging me when relevant. IAWW (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm relieved to hear it's not going too badly, as I've actually been quite enjoying it (apart from the frustration of there not being as many sources available as we would like, because it's such a small language). Thank you for your feedback below, it's really helpful to hear your thoughts—especially on some of the more nuanced criteria! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Subst-ing template in advance of making initial notes. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I think some of the detailed linguistic discussion could be a bit more accessible to a wide audience. Explaining a few technical terms might make for easier reading. Most of the technical terms are already wikilinked, which is great, but a non-specialist reader would likely not want to have to click on every single term they don't understand in order just to understand the sentence; I'm quite experienced with linguistics and have studied languages at degree level, and I found it challenging to keep track of the § Grammar section given how many wikilinks I was having to follow (or add in). It might be an idea to add brief explanations to the most important important technical terms for each topic, especially ones that are repeated several times (eg. marginal in § Consonants, coda in § Syllable structure, headedness and attested in § Word order, etc). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've tried to add more definitions for technical terms. Let me know if anything else is too technical or unclear. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's great, I think those have made a difference! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on WP:MTAU for this article? (Especially if you don't have loads of experience in linguistics!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hello! I certainly do not have loads of experience in linguistics, and WP:MTAU is definitely a big and relevant consideration for this article. I originally was going to read through this section an tell you all the ways I was confused, which is often the best approach, but I don't think it is best in this scenario because I think it would take too much explaining to make this understandable to your average layperson. Note the GA criteria says it should be "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", and in this case I think an appropriately broad audience at least for the more technical parts of the article would include people who have at least some experience with linguistics. However, I still think this has some improvements to be made in this regard:

   • Write one level down. This means the article should be understandable to @Pineapple Storage, who has studied language at a degree level, but not necessarily understandable to me, without me having to follow several links.
   • Add concrete examples – Nahuatl seems to do this quite well. If you can source some concrete examples, they would really help.
   • Try to avoid explaining everything in a parenthetical like this: "The language primarily uses postpositions, though at least one preposition (the comitative) is attested (or that we have evidence of such a feature existing), and a locative suffix is attested." It makes the sentences very un-concise and makes them harder to follow. Where the terms are used just once or twice, either cut the technical term(s) completely, or leave them as a link. If the term is used several times, then an explanation is appropriate, which could be done in a parenthetical.

   @PharyngealImplosive7 Could you go through the article and especially the "grammar" section with these points in mind, and then Pineapple and I can read through to see whether it is understandable enough? IAWW (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've done a bit of expansion and explanation in § Syllable structure (diff) and § Verbs (diff), but other subsections still need a look. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage and It is a wonderful world: I have tried to improve the grammar section; tell me if anything is still unclear or too technical. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Looks great to me! The clarifications you've put in really help, and as there are plenty of wikilinks I think it should work well for most readers. What do you think @It is a wonderful world? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes I think it looks much better. I could not understand the first subsection of the Grammar section at all earlier, but I can follow it a lot better now. It is weird that that subsection is the only one with examples though. Are there any other examples available for the other subsections? IAWW (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: The noun section seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I could add examples there. I also have added one example of serial verb constructions to the verbs subsection. Let me know if you would prefer any more examples anywhere else, as Kjelsvik (2002) has plenty. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @PharyngealImplosive7 Do any sources support the opinion that the phonetic inventory is "large"? If not, that specific opinion should be removed IAWW (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Sorry, just realized I replied to the wrong comment with this. I meant to reply to the lead discussion. IAWW (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: An average phonetic inventory is around 20-30 consonants as per WALS (large (34 or more consonants)). Considering that this language has well over 60 different consonants, I think it is safe to assume that it has a large inventory. Not sure if this qualifies as WP:OR, but I think its fine. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Unfortunately this is not fine as it is OR IAWW (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   This should be fixed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Kjelsvik (2002) p. 9 says The Nizaa language has a fairly complex phonology and tonology, so I think it would be reasonable to put in the lead Nizaa has a complex phonology, with over 60 consonant phonemes ... or similar, and then back this up with further info and a citation () in § Phonology and orthography. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've gone ahead and said that it has a complex system of phonology and cited that in the phonology section. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Layout — Section headers: for clarity, and consistency with other language articles, it might be good to retitle § Phrases as 'Sample text' or 'Example text'. This would also mean that a 'Phrases' section could be used to discuss eg. idioms, if this aspect of the language is discussed in future sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I renamed it to 'Sample text'. I got the idea of naming it 'phrases' originally from Taa language#Phrases, but I agree that it doesn't seem quite right. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Lead section — Summarising body text: I feel like at the moment the lead section doesn't really summarise the rest of the article, as it introduces several different pieces of information that aren't repeated later on. Would there be any way to expand this info into its own section(s) and have more of an overview in the lead? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A few options to consider:

   • § State of the language as in Erromintxela language
   • § Classification and § Geographic distribution as in Czech language and Khmer language
   • § Population and § Geographic distribution as in American Sign Language

   Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've added a 'Geographical distribution and population' section as well as expanded the lead. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The lead section needs some work, but I'll stay out of the discussion for now as you guys are improving it well. IAWW (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Now that @PharyngealImplosive7 has expanded it and I moved the footnotes into the body (mainly to § Geographical distribution and population), I think it feels much more lead-y. Would you agree @IAWW? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes it is looking better. My biggest concern is that most of the second paragraph does not appear to be supported by the body. E.g. "as well as a rich system of tones" and "Nizaa also has a rich system of kinship terminology, with different words being used for different levels of respect". Although some examples exist in the body, these strong statements do not appear to be supported. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Additionally, it could do with some expansion. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: I have tried to remove the strong statements you mentioned as well as slightly expanding it. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The language was not extensively studied before the 1990s, when Christian missionaries Rolf Theil Endresen and Bjørghild Kjelsvik, began to document the language. This is interesting, and would be good to include in the body (along with a source), but at the moment it's new (and unsourced) information in the lead, so could probably do with a revisit? Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: I've created a dedicated § History section expanding on this. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Layout — Section headers: Currently, § Kinship is within the § Grammar section; would it be better in a separate § Vocabulary section? (Could this be another opportunity for some more examples, per IAWW's feedback above?) Also, would it be worth rearranging the sections so that § Name is before § Geographical distribution and population? This would make it more consistent with articles like Erromintxela language; still, I'm not sure whether it's right for this article, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts @PharyngealImplosive7. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   There are no examples in the Kjelsvik (2008) source of any sentences or phrases using that terminology, so we can't really add any examples there. I don't think it would be right to create a separate "vocabulary" section only talking about kinship, which is why I kept it in the grammar section. I moved the "name" section up as you said. @Pineapple Storage: Any further thoughts? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   In terms of examples for a potential § Vocabulary section, I meant it might be good to see if there are any other types of vocabulary—aside from kinship terminology—that have been discussed by sources and might be unusual/unique to Nizaa. I had a quick look through Kjelsvik-2002 but soon got bogged down in the ins and outs of interlinear glossing (and went down a rabbit-hole learning how to use Template:Interlinear!) so unfortunately I can't give you any examples straight away, but I will try and have another look. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Most sources definitely but the source with by far the most citations is Kjelsvik (2002) which has 190 pages, so it's much harder to verify statements than it would be in, for instance, a short journal article. It would be good to include a few different refs to this source specifically, each with page numbers relevant to the sections/statements they're supporting; Template:Sfn might be helpful for this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Added SFNs for all the mentions of Kjelsvik (2002) besides the first one, with page numbers. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Great work! Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Per WP:TSI: for paragraphs which cite a single source, refs can just be at the end of the paragraph, but there are a couple of paragraphs (eg. in § Consonants, § Nouns and pronouns, § Verbs) where multiple citations are at the end of the paragraph, but they don't all contain all the information in the paragraph. (I got a bit stuck with § Vowels and have ended up duplicating ref 2 as I don't have access to it so can't verify whether it supports the first two sentences of the paragraph, just the last sentence, or both.) It might be good to separate out citations where they each support different parts of the paragraph? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Fixed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @PharyngealImplosive7 I've now done a pretty comprehensive/in-depth spot-check of all references (with the exception of TheilEndresen-1991, due to the paywall) and aside from one WP:TSI issue (tagged, in § Verbs) it's all looking great, so once that's sorted I think this criterion will be a strong  ! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Every paragraph cites a reliable source, so no original research as far as I can tell. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The § Name section is closely paraphrased from Blench (1993) p.108 and there's currently no precise ref to the source text (ref 8 just points to the Glottolog entry for the citation, not to the text itself). This has also meant that there's a duplication of pejorative in that section, so this might need rewording. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

    I've now added the expanded Blench ref which includes a link to the source text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   There are a few bits of close paraphrasing from Kjelsvik (2002) and Kjelsvik (2008) in § Phonology and orthography and § Grammar. This might be one cause of the WP:MTAU difficulties mentioned above in point 1A; for both of these reasons, I think it might be a good idea to find ways to reword parts of these sections. It would also be good to double-check that there isn't too much close paraphrasing from Theil Endresen (1991); I would check but unfortunately I don't have access. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Both of these have been fixed to the best of my ability. Especially in more niche fields like phonology, it is kind of hard to preserve the meaning of the source without using similar language to it. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I totally understand! Yep, it's definitely tricky to avoid when there are so few synonyms for the technical terms! Good work on your latest edits tweaking the wording away from the sources; I feel like it runs a bit more smoothly now so this was well done. @It is a wonderful world, do you have any thoughts on close paraphrasing from a Wikipedia policy point of view? Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I think the check you did is really good here. As long as no full sentences or extended phrases are used, then you should be fine because most the content is just facts (WP:FACTSONLY). IAWW (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's great, thank you. In that case, I'm happy with the copyright status at the moment; I'll finalise closer to the end of the review. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Given @PharyngealImplosive7's great work rewording and providing further explanations in the § Phonology and orthography/§ Grammar sections and adding precise SFN refs, as well as @IAWW's feedback above, I'm now happy that the article is a on this criterion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article is pretty comprehensive! For smaller/lesser-known languages, it will always be difficult to provide huge amounts of detail as they are nowhere near as well-documented as some more widely-spoken languages, but there's lots of detail here with regard to the features of the language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See point 4 below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   No issues re viewpoint bias, but re WP:DUE: at the moment, most of the article is the § Phonology and orthography and § Grammar sections. These sections definitely go into a good amount of detail, but by comparison the rest of the article feels like it could do with expanding, so that the non-linguistic information about the language also gets its due weight. Would there be any way to beef the other sections up, for instance with a chunkier intro and the headers mentioned under point 1B above? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   There isn't much info on the non-phonetic/non-grammar aspects of the language, though the lead definitely could be improved. The language doesn't have much documented history, any dialectal/regional variation documented in the literature, or interesting info on the vocabulary (there are lists of verbs documented by Kjelsvik, but I don't think that is necessary to add to the article). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, totally understand the issue here; smaller communities and their languages are often underrepresented by sources. The work you've done so far on the lead and § Geographical distribution and population looks really great! I have to go now, but I will have a look for sources over the next couple of days and see if there's any that go into more detail re history of the language/community. For now, these are the only ones I've found:

   • Leis, Philip (Spring 2011). "Past Passages: Initiation rites on the Adamawa Plateau (Cameroon)". Ethnology. 50 (2). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh: 169–188. ISSN 0014-1828. Retrieved 2025-05-16. I haven't read this one, and it's likely it's not relevant, but it's the only source within the first two pages of Google Scholar that isn't already cited in the article, so it's worth a skim just to check there's no info relevant to the language. I'm happy to do this at some point over the next couple of days, or you're welcome to.
   • Theil Endresen, Rolf [in Norwegian] (1992-06-30). "La phonologie de la langue nizaa (nizaà)" [The phonology of the Nizaa language]. Nordic Journal of African Studies (in French). 1 (1). Nordic Africa Research Network: 28–52. doi:10.53228/njas.v1i1.57. Retrieved 2025-05-15. I've only skimmed this one; I'm not sure whether you speak any French, but if not, I can have a more thorough read of it and see if there's anything useful.

   Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: I've found that

   • Kjelsvik, Bjørghild (March 31, 2008). Emergent speech genres of teaching and learning interaction. Communities of practice in Cameroonian schools and villages. Faculty of Humanities (Linguistics PhD thesis). University of Oslo. pp. 91–134 – via ResearchGate.

   is pretty helpful in terms of the Nizaa people's culture. I've added some information about them in the 'Geographical distribution and population' section. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Oh brilliant! That's looking great. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: I have no knowledge of French, so if you do, I would appreciate it if you could see if the second source has anything useful in it. I'll try to look through the Philip source to find any useful info. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: The Philip source doesn't have much information about the language or the culture itself (besides the circumcision initiation rights which are not really relevant here). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes fair enough, that would seem a bit off-topic! :D I had a look through the French source and given that it's a phonology, most of the content is already covered (eg. by Kjelsvik); there were a couple of points at the beginning about Nizaa farming and religious traditions, as well as the fact that Theil Endresen was the first to properly document the language, so I've added those in as ref 10 and ref 11, just to back up the existing sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

5. Is it stable? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Adamawa Province ethnic groups.png is tagged with cc-by-sa-2.5 at Wikimedia Commons, and shows as CC-BY-SA-3.0 in article. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   File:Map of the Mambiloid languages.svg is tagged with Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The map is definitely relevant, but given that the article title is Nizaa language, it's not immediately clear which label we're supposed to be looking at. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's the patch just to the left of centre that says 'Suga'; if so, it might be worth adding a note to this effect in the caption. Do we know if this map is backed up by any sources? Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The image was added before I started editing the article, so I didn't really scrutinize it much. However, it is supported by the Ethnologue Report of Cameroon and Fanso (1989), which talks about Cameroonian history. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's fair enough! Would it be worth adding these sources to the article somehow, for verifiability? Maybe an explanatory note (using Template:Efn or ref tags) in the caption, with something along the lines of "For demographic information, see [sources]"? Or if not, maybe in a "Further reading" section? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Also, what are your thoughts on File:Map of the Mambiloid languages.svg? Do you think it might be worth adding, either as well as or instead of File:Adamawa Province ethnic groups.png? It might be a bit more relevant as it's a map of languages rather than ethnic groups. Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I think that File:Map of the Mambiloid languages.svg is a better image than the older ethnic group image, so I've added that instead with a caption and alt text. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General feedback (not necessary for WP:GA status)

1. Content

   Just a small note on an area for potential expansion: the § Consonants section mentions Most Nizaa are not literate, and the few who are often only can read and write Fula in the Ajami script. The Latin romanization of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted by the Nizaa people yet because of the low literacy of the Nizaa. As a reader, this left me wondering about the history of romanization of the language, who developed the system, etc. There might not be any sources that discuss this, and I don't have access to all the sources cited here, but this might be something to look into (eg. if you want to take this further to WP:FAC in future). Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   It was Endresen who actually first created the alphabet/romanization. Added that to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Re § Name section: I don't have access to ref 8, but the 2009 edition of Ethnologue states that 'Baghap' is their name for themselves; 'Nizaa' for their language. Maybe Blench (1993) didn't know this at the time/new information has come to light? Might be worth looking into some of the more recent sources to see if any others discuss endonyms of the community/language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Interesting; I didn't notice that when originally reading that source. It seems contradictory to all the other sources in the article; maybe it was a mistake? Blench (1993) does mention that their was some confusion around another unrelated Adamawa language also called Nyamnyam, so this might be related. It might be worth putting a note in the article about this, but I'm not sure. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   A quick note re this edit... Apologies if this is a silly question (my IPA is rustier than I'd like it to be!) but what's the relationship between the tone markers you added and the way it's presented in the source? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I used chao tone letters, which are more accurate then the accents that used by the source (although those are more common in the literature). I also used the IPA long vowel symbol instead of duplicating the vowel, which is preferred in IPA notation. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Interesting! I'd never heard of Chao tone letters. I'm still not sure about usage here, given both WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Tone and WP:TSI, but I don't think it's that big of an issue! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Style

   @PharyngealImplosive7 I can see you're using American English (eg. favor) in the article; do you want to add TM:Use American English for future consistency? You don't have to, of course, but given that you're the main author (and first non-stub author) you do have authority to choose, per WP:ENGVAR/MOS:RETAIN! (You're also welcome to specify your preferred date format with TM:Use MDY dates/TM:Use DMY, if you want to.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Since this doesn't really have strong ties to any variety of English (Cameroon was a German and then a French colony), I'd prefer to leave it without any templates and let MOS:RETAIN prevent anyone from significantly changing it. I'm American, which is why I used American English, as it is what is most natural for me. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's fair enough! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   There's just one Template:Copy edit inline tag in § Morphophonology as there's a run-on sentence that could be a bit clearer. Very minor issue! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That should be fixed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yep looks good! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Just for transparency, I've been through the article and added bibliographic parameters to a few references for verifiability per CITEVAR. Hope this is okay! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

References