For the languages in which the proposed vocabulary is attested... what are the criteria by which we can claim attestation? For example, for 'tower' I propose "tawa", which is perfectly attested in Fijian "tawa" and Tongan "taua", but also somewhat attested in Mandarin "ta3", Japanese "to", English "tower", and many others.

I think there should be primary attestation that would cover languages for exact match (in this case Fijian and Tongan) and secondary attestation for close matches (English and Chinese). Maybe also tertiary attestation for not-entirely-dissimilar words (Japanese).

That sounds workable. The tertiaries would be more on the level of mnemonic hooks than attestations. We could show it like this (note positions of semicolons to delimit the three levels):

(fij ton; eng; man jpn)

BTW, I assume we are using ISO 693-3 codes for the languages?

By the way, I bolded in Phonology the parts that I think are meant as text rather than comments.

I replaced your bolded text by a blue, regular one. Feel free to revert my change if you dislike it.

No, the blue is fine, and probably easier to read. So as a style, let's adopt blue for real text.

I just want to comment on the site itself. One thing has to do with PBWiki, but the font is far too small (even on my 19" flatscreen), and I'd like to see a more legible color scheme. The color scheme on Mulivo is a good start. I'm not sure what the font options are but I'd like to see at least a 9pt font, preferably something without serifs like Arial Unicode MS or a Helvetica font that includes most of the codepoints needs to render the major languages we'll be working with.

There are some other color schemes (skins) available in this wiki, but the one used in Mulivo requires upgrading to Premium service which costs money. Also custom style sheet (wiki.css) requires upgrading.

I'm out for a few days. Hope to be back mid-next week.