The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 03:24, 3 August 2009 [1].

WikiProjects notified.

Fails 1c. Very few citations. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't see why this article passed in the first place. Hopefully the sources are in the article and the footnotes just haven't been added. I might look into it later. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The grammar part does enumerate some structural peculiarities of Aramaic, but it does not pin down the existing oppositions and their evolution into each other within grammaticalization. It does not say anything about syntactic patterns, constructions, information structure.
• The phonological part doesn’t address synchronic phonological processes that might often be observed in individual varieties, but is restricted to the sound inventory.
• Next to no in-line citations.

Looks like B class. The content seems to be slightly better, not yet sufficient for GA, while the in-line references lean more towards C class. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original article and got it to featured status a few years ago. The article gained featured status long before Wikipedia had any decent form of referencing. Most of the historical part of the article is based on the overview by Klaus Beyer, which is mentioned as a general reference. When the article gained featured status, the main concern was with its length rather than its references. For that reason, some sections, like phonology, were kept short. If I could have a list of specific practical issues with the article, I can improve it pretty quickly. I feel it is far better to look for ways to improve articles rather than bureaucratic reclassification. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess at least every paragraph must have a reference, and more where required, including page numbers (maybe with an exemption for lexicons?!). The number of books given as references should exactly be those that were quoted in the article.

According to Wikipedia:Splitting#Article size, the size is maybe a bit large, but it is still considerably smaller than the FAs Mayan languages and Turkish language and the GA Japanese grammar, so I hope length will not be of concern right now.

If the others agree with that, I would suggest giving some more details about the function of voice, word order and its functions and the development of the aspect system. The expression of modality would be worthwhile as well. I don’t get the state thing as well. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the grammar section is severely lacking in information, presentation and sources. It doesnt give any kind of feeling for what is typical of aramaic in comparison with other semitic languages. I would vote delist on this issue alone.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, sourcing issues have not been addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on — I have asked for a little time to update this article and don't appreciate this being pushed through. This takes time to build, but a moment to tear apart. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles that meet the FA criteria are kept as featured articles; articles that don't are delisted. It's on the community to make sure articles meet current FA criteria. If you want to bring an article back to FA status, then make your intentions clear. You announced your plans to refine this article two weeks ago, but we never received any further comment from you. FAR will give time to editors who want to salvage an article, but you must give us updates of your progress. I believe everyone here assumed that the article work had been aborted. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use my talk page rather than assume things. It does take time to write articles, and it takes time for me to take the books down from my shelves to reference everything. I have written an expanded section on grammar also. Our aim is to make the article as good as it can be. I am capable of doing that, most others aren't. To that end I expect the Wikipedia community to be supportive of improvement work rather than pulling meaningless deadlines from the air. I am grateful that a few of the above statements have been useful. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but you must start referencing the article ASAP or it will undoubtedly be delisted. Even B-class articles need to have footnotes. Anyway, I know it might take time to find the page numbers and the specific book, but you or someone else with sources needs to at least start the footnoting process or editors will not be convinced that it shouldn't be delisted. Cheers and good luck! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While progress is being made to address the referencing issues this FARC will be left open. Be sure to provide updates or I will assume that progress has stalled. Joelito (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun adding references to the article. Some re-editing is required as controversial material has been added. Once decent references are in place for all substantive points, I shall add a more extensive guide to Aramaic phonology that I have written. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still many referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of work needes still, in addition to the citation issues mentioned, there are image layout issues, a mixture of endashes and spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH), a farm in See also which should be reduced, left-aligned images under third-level headings, etc ... cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist nothing happening YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Referencing concerns remain. Prose issues, structure-related issues (stubby paragraphs and sections), the clean-up need Sandy raised. And not much improvement. I think the best thing is Garzo to re-nominate the article, when he feels ready to do so.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to commend Gareth for his contributions to wikipedia. Subject-specialists and professionals prepared to use their real names as they edit here are in short supply and should be welcomed and encouraged. As he is an identifiable expert, I do not feel that his work requires the same intense verification required for contributions written by anonymous or pseudonymous contributors. I have only one particular concern with the reliability of the article, and that comes from Gareth's comment that "controversial material has been added". Can Gareth assure us that the article represents current academic thinking, and presents a balanced view of the subject area?

On the issue of prose and structure, I have a few comments:

• "Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by many scattered, predominantly small, and largely isolated communities of differing Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups of the Middle East^[1]—most numerously by the Assyrians in the form of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic—that have all retained use of the once dominant lingua franca despite subsequent language shifts experienced throughout the Middle East." - this sentence is too long.
• The use of "(see below)" indicates structural problems, as it should not be necessary to refer to information that follows to understand information that precedes it.
• The "Geographic distribution" section includes some history, so maybe this section and "History" can be combined to avoid the short, listy introductory history section later on?
• Please use either ndashes (–) or mdashes (—) but not both, so that the article presents a uniform style to the reader.
• Make "The dialects mentioned in the last section were..." specific, say "The Post-Achaemenid Aramaic dialects were...".
• The use of idiomatic phrases like "with a foot in Imperial" can be confusing to readers who do not share your particular cultural background or are reading english as their second or third language. It is better to speak plainly and use simple sentence forms.
• I suppose there should be a cite for "Modern Aramaic speakers found the language stilted and unfamiliar."
• There are a number of short sections in the "Middle Aramaic" section. Perhaps reviewers here would be assuaged if this was formatted as a table?
• The "See also" section contains many links that are already linked earlier in the article. It is generally considered unnecessary to repeat links. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing seems to be happening with this one. Main contributor has not edited since May 5. I will wait a few more days before closing in the hope that Gareth renews editing. Joelito (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I apologize for leaving you all waiting: I've been busy with publishing deadlines. I have a draft of three new sections to add to the article, mostly covering points raised above, and I have a list of references to be added to the extant article. Thank you, DrKiernan, for your points, I think most of the changes you suggest can be made without too much difficulty. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get an update? This FAR has lasted well over two months now, and I don't see a potential for progress in the foreseeable future. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the section on nouns and adjectives, including detailed explanation of the state system, as has been requested: more soon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, I'd say. Put it out of its misery if none of the authors cares. "Old Aramaic covers over thirteen centuries of the language." Hmmm. "Ancient Aramaic refers to the Aramaic of the Aramaeans from its origin until it becomes the official 'lingua franca' of the Fertile Crescent. It was the language of the city-states of Damascus, Hamath and Arpad." Mixed tenses. Where are the citations? Looking no further.Tony (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing particularly wrong with any of those statements; please explain yourself. I'm expanding those points that have been requested and will be adding the citations soon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejoinder:
  • One language "covers" another? To fix, ask why "of the language" is needed in the first place. Better something like "refers to the language in its form from the X to the Y centuries". Be specific and the logic is right, then.
  • "Aramaic ... Aramaic"—please avoid such close reps. "refers to the language of". Easy. But even in the lead, I'd still want a bit of timing ("Crescent in the blah century BC").
  • The link to "Israel" goes to "Isreal and Judea". Is this an important distinction that should not be concealed in the pipe? Unhappy about having to click on "Second Temple" in the second sentence to orient myself. The lead should be big picture and prepare non-experts for the greater detail in the body of the article. This lead creates too many questions in my mind.
• Remove "therefore" from the second sentence? "... period and the mother tongue of Jesus ...". The second sentence is a three-item list, and the second item, without a tense, is uncomfortably hanging between the past of the first item and the present of the third.

That's the opening two sentences. I think this demonstrates that the article needs time off the list, where it can be worked up to modern FA standards in a number of respects and resubmitted. A shining article we can all be proud of will probably result. Tony (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I do agree that inserting references into such an article will take a while, but if one is an expert and has the relevant literature at hand, supplying in-line citations could probably be done within one day. Indeed, NONE has been supplied since this review began. But even if work was ongoing, almost two months is too long for a FAR. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, to most of those observations. Some references have been added and the grammar section is being rewritten. It seems no one else has the will or ability to edit this article, so I am doing it all. I have real work to do too. Providing the best references for an article like this isn't that easy: three millennia of detailed analysis isn't found in a couple of books, and I really want to move away from the overdependence on Beyer that the article has. So, this is not a helpful or constructive comment. Of course, if you want to delist the article I'll spend my energy on something more deserving and let you all do this rewrite. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you are right about the time frame, but the worst problem is not the number (or quality) of cited research work, but rather the lack of linking the available information to its sources in the bibliography via in-line references. During the last 50 or so edits, about one in-line reference has been added. The problem of verifiability should have preference over sheer content matters. I wouldn't have written my last commentary if it was about 10 new in-line references. By the way, TriZ, please care a bit to hit the right tone - commends like my last one are less likely to give me a timeout than yours. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on hold. I can't believe the wiseacres here, it's un-fuckin-believable. Here we have a real expert in the field of Aramaic language, a subject that few know much about, and your doing like this? If you want some quality articles on these subjects, then have some patience and give the experts some credit. Comments like G Purevdor's should be ought to be removed and the user to be awarded with some refreshing time-out. The TriZ (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. After months original concerns haven't been properly addressed. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. A read through the history shows no organized progress toward keeping this an FA in more than three weeks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist The crucial issue of lack of citations 1c has not changed since March 23 {four months ago) when it was nominated for FAR.[2] —Mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist—citation desert. Tony (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Gareth has not edited for over a month now. I say we bin this right now. This FAR is going nowhere. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.