Abstract
This paper attempts to evaluate some of the systematic differences in Uralic Universal Dependencies treebanks from a perspective that would help to introduce reasonable improvements in treebank annotation consistency within this language family. The study finds that the coverage of Uralic languages in the project is already relatively high, and the majority of typically Uralic features are already present and can be discussed on the basis of existing treebanks.
Some of the idiosyncrasies found in individual treebanks stem from language-internal grammar traditions, and could be a target for harmonization in later phases.