Talk:Classical Chinese lexicon

Stub rating
This article contains lots of examples, but


 * There is no proper definition of word classes, be it syntactic or (partly) morphological.
 * "Classical Chinese" is not a proper periodic term, so the article ought to relate to concrete time periods (which it doesn't).
 * The origin of lexical items (e.g. loans) is not discussed in the least.
 * To understand the section on loans, some introduction to Classical Chinese phonology would be in place.
 * Stylistics should be a substantial part of what we know about pre-modern forms of Chinese, but it is not discussed.

Consequently, just taking into account the more substantial part of the article, the partly sourced, ok-written, incomplete lead and discounting all the less relevant examples, I arrive at a stub class rating. G Purevdorj (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Due to revisions since this 2013 stub rating, inclusion of reference citations, and article length, the article fails to meet Stub criteria. However, that does not mean that the critical views are invalid as ways to possibly improve the article in the future, just that Stub criteria seems not to be met, per WP:Stub (none of above are mentioned at all). Therefor, changing class to Start. Dcattell (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)