Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evidentiality/archive1

Evidentiality[edit]

(Hopefully) A good introduction to evidentiality. – ishwar (speak) 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, straight away there are no references. «LordViD» 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i'm not sure what you mean. there are quite a lot of references. – ishwar (speak) 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LordViD, you should see the Bibliography section which is full of References. — Wackymacs 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Sorry, I missed that. «LordViD» 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Bibliography section be renamed References? AndyZ 15:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know. i prefer bibliography since i dont see much use in separating "references" from "further reading". nevertheless, this has been done (with help from Wackymacs). – ishwar (speak) 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merged them back together. most of the references are recommended for further reading. – ishwar (speak) 20:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. The article is quite listy, these lists need to be converted into prose and explained in detail. — Wackymacs 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi. thanks. could you be more specific as to what lists you are referring? i have put some prose in bulleted lists because i thought it would organize the presentation better. do you object to this? the list in typology section is a list in the source (although there is more explanation in the source as well). peace – ishwar (speak) 22:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no pictures (although exactly what pictures there could be I do not know). Batmanand 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so you dont have a suggestion for pictures? – ishwar (speak) 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a comment. Hence I have not voted either way. Batmanand 12:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks. – ishwar (speak) 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]