# Talk:Wangerooge Frisian

@ThaesOfereode:, I wanted to find out more about Anna Metta Claßen, but I think the link for Gregersen 2024a is wrong. https://dspace.uba.uva.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/0cd5fc49-c475-4097-b5b4-a6ab4d2e7717/content gives me Indigenous Andean Voices at the Interface between the Oral and the Written. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

My bad; thanks for letting me know! It looks like I accidentally copied chapter two from the issue instead of chapter three, but it should be fixed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wangerooge Frisian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: ThaesOfereode 18:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: EllaMinnowPea371 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @ThaesOfereode, I will be your reviewer for this article! As this is only my second GA review, I will be receiving assistance from my mentor, @It is a wonderful world. Just from a quick scan-over it already looks great, and I'm very impressed that you are the author of over 96% of the article, so I'm excited for this review. My plan is to first read over the article and give a brief assessment, and then give more in-depth comments. Thank you, EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@EllaMinnowPea371: Wonderful! I'm looking forward to your review and appreciate your kind words! I had an excellent time writing this article; I hope you enjoy reading it half as much as I enjoyed writing it. Please feel free to get into the weeds on this one; once Sune Gregersen releases his comprehensive grammar, I plan to make this a featured article candidate. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
This looks very interesting! Nice pick @EllaMinnowPea371! Here are two tips that newer reviewers sometimes struggle with:
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.
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) 12:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @EllaMinnowPea371, I'm just dropping by to say that this looks really good so far. You have done a really good job at explaining your processes and points clearly. You are also doing a really good job of sticking to clarity and conciseness points in the prose, per the GA criteria, rather than nitpicking. Note with the spot check, you can save yourself some time in the future by not explaining why every single citation you checked passes, that's not expected of you, though it does add to clarity. Let me know if you have any questions! IAWW (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I will definitely keep that thing about the spot check in mind for the future, so thank you for that as well. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello again @ThaesOfereode, first I want to say how much of a pleasure it has been working with you on this review. Your comments have all been thoughtful, constructive, and patient towards me as a new reviewer. The article was already high quality when I opened this review, and it has only improved since then. @It is a wonderful world can check me on this, but I believe the next move is to pass the article. Excellent job. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @EllaMinnowPea371 this looks to be a great review. I just notice you pinged me at the image criteria, and there is some tagging changes that need to be made to the images:
File:Carl Friedrich Voigt Wangerooge 001.jpg and File:Enno Littmann (cropped).JPG need tags explaining why they are public domain in the US
File:Theodor Siebs (1922).jpg needs a tag explaining why it is public domain in the country of origin
File:ASKEN1AB.JPG seems to be public domain? I'm not sure why the GNU and CC3.0 tags are on there.
IAWW (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Once these are fixed I'll be happy to see this article passed :)
EllaMinnow this was a very competent review. I think you are more than ready to review without a mentor, but feel free to ping me if you have any questions or want a third opinion in any reviews you do in the future. Again, great work! IAWW (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
I am still working on the provenance of the original Littmann photo, but found and uploaded a new one in lieu (note that the image was taken in Princeton, NJ, and so doesn't need a German tag). I think the rest of the image concerns have been addressed, but let me know if not. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Excellent. I am going to pass the article now. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@EllaMinnowPea371: The pleasure has been all mine. It was nice to have a thorough reviewer with (what appears to be) a linguistics background. Thank you for all the kind words and thoughtful comments throughout. I hope you'll consider being a reviewer for my other GANs in the future. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)


### Initial assessment – see the criteria
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
See further comments
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Article complies with MOS guidelines.

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
See further comments
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): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
See spot check
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
See Languages template; article includes plenty of information for every main subtopic except Writing systems. No major omitted areas considering the breadth of research.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Structure follows that of similar GA and FA-class articles.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
As far as I can tell everything is good here, but It is a wonderful world can help me out with this.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
See further comments
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Spot check
From this revision
[3] [4] Y Source says: "Whether Wangerooge Frisian at the time of documentation should be called a ‘language’ or
‘dialect’ is largely a terminological question. It historically formed part of a larger East Frisian continuum," [...] "Arjen Versloot (pers. comm.) suggests that Wangerooge Frisian and Saterlandic probably differed as much as the Mainland Scandinavian languages, if not more so" (pp. 77-78) * I would say pass, but the text in the article may count as close paraphrasing. 
[13] Y Source says: "Sproget blev talt i det lille fiskersamfund på Wangerooge og havde i begyndelsen af det 19. årh. omk. 200 talere." (p. 42) I don't speak Danish but the key information here is "around 200 speakers in the 19th century"; Google tells me omk. stands for omkring (around), talere is the plural of taler (speaker), and årh. stands for århundrede (century). Checks out.
[18] Y Source says: "Most of his (Ehrentraut's) material was published by him in the two volumes of his short-lived journal Friesisches Archiv (1847–54), more (some of it duplicates) from his Nachlaß by Versloot in 1996." (p. 369)
[24] Y Source gives several examples of language differences between Ehrentraut's documentation and the invitation. (pp. 55-56)
[39] Y Source says: "Other sound developments that are in evidence in these forms [including wüüduu] are the lengthening of absolute  final *-i# and *-u# after Old Wangeroogic light syllables" (p. 178)
[44] Y Source explains vowel balance of Old Weser Frisian and gives examples; states "This phenomenon was peculiar to Rüstringen and the stress pattern underlying it (i.e., division of stress over both syllables) is reflected in the descendant dialects of Wangerooge" (p. 112)
[53] Y (p. 140)
     a. Source says: "In another case, originally suppletive forms may have taken over the complete basic paradigm; thus [...] Old Frisian ieva, has been fully ousted by reik, originally ‘to reach’, in its normal use and is only preserved in a number of derivations and fixed expressions (such as fargívve ‘to forgive’, too hooep gívve ‘to unite in matrimony’ lit. ‘to give together’)." ✓ 
     b. Source says: "This verb (sjoo) has suppletive past tense and past participle forms in Wangerooge Frisian, which were provided by the weak verb +biilauk ‘to watch (to belook)’" ✓ 
     c. Source says: "The East Frisian dialects more generally show a somewhat higher amount of verbal suppletion than other Frisian dialects or other Germanic languages" ✓


### Prose (Criterion 1a)
The following sections will consist of issues I see in the article and recommendations I have to fix them based on the criteria. If a criterion is not listed here, I consider it to have already met the GA standard and have given my reasons for thinking so above. Please use the  Done template to indicate that an issue has been adequately addressed, or if you disagree with me, tell me why. 

You got it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Lead
All good. Nice job!

Thank you! ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Classification
The phrase "matter/subject of scholarly debate" is used twice in this section, which is redundant. For one of them, you could just say "is debated" or "is contested."
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
This sentence is confusing: "Among several Frisian languages and dialects, English, and Scots, it shows the highest percentage of archaic features and is second-highest in irregular forms, including innovative and conservative irregularities." I would suggest changing this to "Compared with several Frisian languages and dialects, as well as English and Scots, Wangerooge Frisian shows the highest percentage of archaic features and is second-highest in irregular forms, including innovative and conservative irregularities." to clarify that English and Scots are not Frisian languages and that Wangerooge Frisian is the most conservative among all of them.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Documentation
There should be a comma after 'thereafter' in the second sentence. If this creates a comma-heavy sentence in your view, you can change the structure of the sentence.
 Done (fixed comma heaviness with endashes) ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
You don't need to say both "around this time" and "at the beginning of the 19th century" in the same sentence, as the previous statements make that clear.
 Done Good WP:POSA catch! ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"The majority of the recorded materials from these trips were of Claßen's speech." This sentence needs clarifying; was Claßen actually recorded by a phonograph or something, or was what she said just written down?
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"Among them are a handful of collected texts published in a compendium published in 1854" → "Among them are a handful of collected texts published in an 1854 compendium"
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"Littmann, however, actively edited the speech of his informants, some marked with brackets or comments while others are completely unmarked. For example, he repeatedly applies siin, the masculine possessive determiner, "against other information in [his] transcript", so it is unknown what term his informants actually used." I don't understand what this is trying to say. What do you mean, edited? He went in with an audio editor and edited their speech, or falsified his written records? How do we know that "siin" is partially an invention of Littmann, or why do we suspect it? What does "against other information" mean?
 Done Littmann, like most linguists of the period, operated with an outdated style of linguistic (frankly, scientific) study. In modern linguistics, descriptive linguistics dominates, which is the idea that science should describe the language as it's actually used, rather than prescribe certain norms to speech, called prescriptive linguistics. Littmann tells us that he falsified his own records, ignoring his Frisian informants' usage (i.e., "against other information", which are his own words) as "incorrect". I have adapted the section to reflect this better, though I am hesitant to write too much on prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics as being rather off-topic and maybe editorializing. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"While Ehrentraut may have introduced some effects of normalization, his work is generally considered to be the most reliable record." What effects?
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"...was discovered through a digital search of the Oldenburg State Library." Was discovered? When? If it can still be accessed by someone, change this to "is discoverable."
 Not done When I first wrote this, I tried desperately to find out when this happened with zero luck. Unfortunately, Gregersen doesn't say in the work when they were discovered, only "recently". Also, here "discovered" is literal; no one knew what the piece was until someone (presumably Gregersen or someone he knew) found it in a catalog of documents. The phrase "is discoverable" doesn't fit that specific meaning. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, then I think it might be necessary to specify that Gregersen discovered it, because otherwise readers are left with a lot of questions. Your call, though. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Going to go with "no" on this one, just since Gregersen doesn't explicitly say he was the one who discovered them and indeed he may not have been. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"In the 1874 corpus, the editor Johan Winkler was clearly influenced by Ehrentraut's earlier orthography, such as using ⟨ôe⟩ for the centering diphthong /oːə̯/." → "Editor Johan Winkler, in his 1874 corpus, was clearly influenced by Ehrentraut's earlier orthography. For instance, he used ⟨ôe⟩ for the centering diphthong /oːə̯/." or something similar.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"However, this compendium departs..." Departs from what? Ehrentraut's orthography? I think this should be specified.
 Not done I think this is fairly obvious based on the last two sentences and the following clause. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Again, no need to say both "later" and "in 1996" in the same sentence. The context makes that clear.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"the acute is marked on the first vowel" → "the acute was marked on the first vowel" unless Versloot's orthography is the dominant one.
 Not done I believe Versloot's is the dominate one; Versloot, Gregersen, and Stiles all use the updated orthography. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, great. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"the entirety of the surviving texts number around 100,000 words in total" → "the entirety of the surviving texts have around 100,000 words in total" because at first it sounds like there are 100,000 surviving texts!
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Decline
"...population dwindled to only eighty-six residents" → "...population had dwindled to only eighty-six residents"
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
No need to say both "local" and "spoken in the area" in the same sentence, as they mean the same thing.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Nitpick (not needed for GA status): In the infobox, it says the language went extinct in 1950 "with the death of Heinrich Christian Luths or Hayo Hayen", but I think since (I assume) it's unclear which one of them died first, you can say "and" instead of "or."
 Not done Presumably, one of these men died first; I just don't know which. Either Luths was the last speaker or Hayen was, so I think the retention of "or" is preferable here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Vowels
What does "based on their stress" mean? Did long versions of /a ɛ/ only occur when the syllable was stressed? I think this needs to be clarified.
 Not done Probably, but the source material is vague. Versloot describes Ehrentraut's description as: Regarding /a/ and /e/ he notes that they can be lengthened depending on the stress (translated from German). ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion: You might need a (phonemic, not phonetic because there are no sound samples) transcription of your examples of replicated a-umlaut, as it took me a while to realize that wüüduu was an example of a lengthened i that underwent rounding.
 Not done I don't think it's necessary since it's only about the length, which I think is either A.) already known by the reader who is reading through and read the orthography section, or B.) interpretable from its duplication. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
What is a "historically light syllable"? An open syllable? This probably needs to be defined.
 Not done Typically, I would agree with you here; they are synonyms in a lot of linguistic literature. Here though, I don't think so since Stiles distinguishes a "light open syllable" from others and writes that Saterlandic vowels in "light syllables" sometimes "behave as in an open syllable". He cites a "standard interpretation" in Hofmann (1961), but the paper is actually on Wursten Frisian so I'm kind of at a loss as to what such an interpretation is "standard" to (Frisian as a whole? East Frisian? Just these two languages? Hard to say.). Open to other wordings here, but unfortunately I can't figure out what this means specifically here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The last sentence should be "Blocking probably occurred if a long i was found in the following syllable, as in ipiin ('open')." for tense agreement.
 Not done Linguistic terminology expresses the present tense for this. "Occurred" is in the past tense here because it's describing an older sound change not the present form. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a sound argument (and so I'm okay with the rest of your decisions on tense), but I still think that either the present or the past tense should be used in one sentence, not both. The article currently says "Blocking probably occurred if a long i is found in the following syllable, as in ipiin ('open')." EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done Went with past tense here. ThaesOfereode (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Consonants
Again, tense agreement. Two sentences in this section use the present tense when they should have the past. They are: "The consonantal makeup of Wangerooge Frisian is unique in the family" ; "...the dialect has a complete absence of word-initial voiced fricatives."
 Not done See above about terminology. Happy to clarify if needed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
"While the distribution of dental fricatives was predetermined by position in Old Frisian" → "While the distribution of voiced and voiceless dental fricatives was predetermined by position in Old Frisian" since I assume that's what you mean.
 Not done Not sure what distinction you're drawing here; "all dental fricatives" = "voiced and voiceless dental fricatives". ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
"respectively"? How is ii a diphthong?
 Done Oof, embarrassing miss there! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
New paragraph for "A characteristic of the history of Wangerooge Frisian is the excrescence of r..." to separate it from vowel balance, as I assume they are not the same process.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Morphology
Tense agreement... the section says "gender is not interpretable from the noun itself" and "Gender was not distinguishable in the plural" in the same paragraph. Again, this should be reconciled throughout.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)


#### Vocabulary and syntax
"...while others like var langerer tid, were calqued instead (vor längerer Zeit 'a long time ago')" → "while others, like var langerer tid, were calqued instead (c.f. vor längerer Zeit 'a long time ago')" for clarity
 Done Rephrased in a different way. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Not a suggestion, but that particular semantic shift is soooo interesting... `ᵕ`
Totally agree! It was this page's DYK for a reason!  ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion: wikilink to suppletion for WP:MTAU
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Should be "Wangerooge Frisian exhibited a pro-drop tendency" for tense agreement; same thing for "...was dropped before heit"
 Not done As above. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
When were strong and weak forms of the definite article used?
Already in the text: The strong forms were used in common in anaphoric contexts, expressions of time, and most contexts in which an unfamiliar referent is mentioned. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Ah! You're right. Can't believe I missed that. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, @ThaesOfereode, I'm saying a lot about tense agreement and I can definitely understand the argument for using the present tense when referring to the corpora, as they still exist even though the language does not. Most of the instances of present tense I mentioned above do merit a conversion to past, but this one: "The forms are as follows:" (and some others) are hazier. I'm going to leave it up to you, as it doesn't impact readability that much.
No worries; I know this can be somewhat confusing for a lay reader! ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)


### Layout (Criteria 1b & 2a)
#### Tables
Suggestion: collapse short and long vowel tables into one, like in the Danish language article.
 Done ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


#### References
Ref.s [2], [5], [14], [30], and [34] are all multiple references in one. I would suggest splitting these up into several references, and to avoid overciting information that is widely agreed to be true, just pick the one or two sources that state it the most clearly.
Ref.s [16], [23], [31], [33], [35], and [57] all have text clarifying which bit of information is supported by what citation. While this is a clear way to meet the requirements of verifiability, I personally think it's clumsy and not very professional. Although not required to meet GA status, I would highly suggest again splitting these up into multiple references that come at the end of each statement. For example, for ref [33], you could write: "In 1890, the German census only counted thirty-two speakers(Gregerson 2024 p. 50) while around ten years later, Siebs reported thirty-six, though they could "no longer [speak] completely clearly"; these thirty-six are considered to have been semi-speakers.(Gregerson 2023 p. 42) When he traveled to Varel in 1927, their number had shrunk to seven elderly speakers around eighty or older.(Gregerson 2024 p. 50)", of course formatting accordingly. Content for which this layout cannot be easily applied, like for ref [35], could just be split into two citations right next to each other. Alternatively, you could add a footnote with the other citation at the bottom of the table, like in Tlingit language or Standard German.
Note WP:BUNDLING discusses this practice in detail. It has some advantages, too. IAWW (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I didn't know about this. @ThaesOfereode, you can ignore this then. EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
No worries. I'm glad IAWW saved me a bit of typing! ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)


### Images (Criteria 6a & 6b)
Image #5's caption is longer than it should be, in my opinion: "An illustration of life on Wangerooge about thirteen years before the New Year's Flood that devastated the island in 1855". Could this be reduced to just "...about thirteen years before the New Year's Flood" or something similar?
 Done