Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Comparative method/archive1

Comparative method
This article does an excellent good job of explaining what could have been a hideously complex and technical subject without oversimplifying anything, has been very well written and makes excellent use of examples. Currently, there are only three or four linguistics (as opposed to language) featured articles, and this is by far one of the best of the others - better than many "introductory" textbooks on the subject. sjcollier 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  Object. ' Insufficient lead, and lack of inline citations. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the inline citations - it's not part of the featured article criteria, and there are many, many featured articles, particularly on those scientific topics which are unlikely to be disputed, that don't use them at all. It's hard to see what they would add to the main body of the article, though I suppose they may be useful for the examples: I'll see what I can do.  I take your point about the lead in, though, and will have a go and improving it, hopefully without duplicating too much of Comparative linguistics. sjcollier 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is now much better. Thank you for your patience, I was on vacation and unable to respond more quickly. All of my objections have been admirably addressed. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object . Although it is an interesting article and alot of work has gone into it, there are still some problems. Inline citations are necessary, and those FAs lacking them should be thoroughly reviewed. Take this sentence from the article for example: "Modern Persian in fact takes more of its words from Arabic than from its direct ancestor, Proto-Indo-Iranian." I cannot speak Persian and even if I could, I couldn't subjectively verify this. As such, I may want to find out who discovered this fact and read the paper they had produced which would detail their experimental method. The best way to enable a reader to do this is by linking the sentence to a specific reference - inline citation. A second problem concerns the prose: although it is generally good and readable, it falls down in a few places ("This is because of heavy borrowing over the years from Arabic into Persian", for example). I do hope this article gets through. Good luck, Oldak Quill 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was what I meant about citations maybe being useful for the examples - inline citations for the comparative method itself would be rather spurious, as most of the books currently in the references section are basically more long-winded versions of this article.  I'll see what I can do to provide citations for the Indo-European examples (though they won't be from the original papers...), but will have to appeal on the talk page for somebody else to help out with all the stuff from other language families.
 * By the way, the obvious example of an FA on a very similar topic that doesn't bother with inline citations is Vowel - though this has suffered a (failed) "Featured Article Removal" attempt because of it. A random sample of other FAs with no inline citations (or, indeed, no references at all), some of which admittedly seem likely to suffer similar attempts to remove their FA status in the near future: Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, Spacecraft propulsion, Telephone exchange, Regular polytope, Nuclear weapon.  There are others. sjcollier 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain. No inline citations (they are a standard since few months). Lead is too short. See also is rather long. Are there no external links to link but one? Per MoS, usage of bold text should be avoided in body of the article. Just one of those articles that would benefit from PR first, as is stressed in FA guidelines.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree about the citations (by the way, there are a (very) few inline Harvard citations alread, but not enough), and will do something about the lead.
 * I don't think that See also is abnormally long or irrelevant, though I suppose the four linguists could be given their own explanatory subheading, or (better?) individual explanations.
 * Sadly, it is true that there are very few useful external web-pages on this topic (another reason why this should be a FA?) - I've added the only one that I'm aware of; the first couple of hundred Google hits only duplicate information already in this article.
 * MoS does not say to avoid bold text in the article body, or even advise against it: it merely advises to use it "judiciously". I can't be bothered to argue the point, though, so I've changed it to italics anyway.
 * I've also carried out a few minor changes to bring eveything inline with the MoS (quotes, italics, etc.) and corrected and added a few internal links. Will have a crack at the lead later.  sjcollier 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the article is much better now. I'd prefer footnotes to Harvard refs, but this is a matter of style. I'd recommend adding a few more ilinks and creating some redirects (or stubs) - just look at the 3 red links that I now created in lead (all to strange terms that should be explained). Consider asking User:AndyZ to run his PRbot through the article if you don't want to submit it there for MoS comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've added stubs for the redlinks.  The criticim claim used to be cited, but I moved the citation when somebody pointed out to me that Lead section says "All of the various points should be expanded upon later in the article, and the appropriate references provided at that point, rather than in the lead section."  The claim is referenced in the Criticism intro.  I will look into taking your advice on the PR bot.  Cheers, sjcollier 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I ran the PRbot and acted on some of its suggestions - I had completely forgotten about captions for the images. sjcollier 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting - but I'd still support adding referenced to the lead. For example, I can't imagine a FA like Katyn Massacre without them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

sjcollier 09:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. There's nothing about the origins of the method, that I can see at least. Also, this is perhaps just me, but I'm unfond of long blockquotes: perhaps you could re-write it and then turn "Assessment" into the lead paragraph for the "Weakness" section? The title "Weakness" seems a little POV, perhaps "Criticism" would be better? It might also make sense to combine the subsections of the "Neogrammarian hypothesis," rename "Problems with the Tree Model" to "Tree and wave models," removing the then-needless subheading. More broadly, some of the paragraphs are shortish, perhaps comibne them? To make the copy a little more appealing visually, try experimenting with the align attribute for your tables: {| class="wikitable" align="right" .--Monocrat 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Update. Agent X, Red Newt and I have made a few changes to this article to try to meet the objections. The work done so far has been to:
 * add inline citations - now complete
 * reformat the tables into something that is hopefully a bit more aestheticly pleasing
 * drastically prune the See also
 * add an External link - though sadly, I can't see this section being expanded much further
 * rewrite the lead - including removal the bullet points and overly-scientific language
 * renaming of Weaknesses to Criticism
 * trimming of the blockquote, and moving the Assessment subsection so it becomes an introduction to Criticism
 * fixing and adding internal links
 * various minor fixes to bring the article in line with the MoS
 * add a new section on the origins and development of the method
 * fix, or provide stubs for, all of the redlinks


 * I feel that, although the article will probably be expanded further over the coming weeks, it is now up to FA standard - though any further feedback from those who objected would be appreciated. Therefore:


 * Support. as per my original proposal. Cheers, sjcollier 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not there yet. It is much improved, but it's still lacking in the origins of the method.--Monocrat 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the reminder. We've added a new section on the origins and development.  sjcollier 21:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Better. I like the material in the "Terminology" section, but its placement and structure seem awkward. (It feels like an afterthought; perhaps break it up and place the material where appropriate elsewhere? This isn't a critical note. Just a thought.) Also, take note of your capitalization in the headings, per the WP:MOS. The copy needs some work still: we see "German" fourteen times in "Terminology" and "Origins" alone. And Verner "promulgated Verner's Law?" Promulgate has specific meanings that don't fit here, and did he really name it after himself? "Probably the earliest" is a little weasley (see WP:WTA; take care of that and look for other instances. In sum, the copy is a little awkward and a little too repetitive, even for a technical article.--Monocrat 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the pointers - I really appreciate all the help you're giving with getting this article up to scratch. I've addressed the individual issues that you picked out, except for the German thing - you do have a valid point, but it may take a while to work around (too many German linguists doing work on the Germanic languages).  I've also read WP:WTA - for which, big thanks - and gone through the article trying to get rid of them: there were more than I expected, but I think I got them all.  As for terminology, I guess it could be integrated in the article, but possibly at the expense of moving Origin and development somewhere else in the article (as that section has too many terms that would need explaining); personally, I think that Origin is good where it is (ie before Application) - but that's just personal preference. Cheers, sjcollier 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm off on holiday for the week, but will probably be sad enough to take a printed copy of this article with me and see if I can find any more tweaks to make to it. If anybody has any suggestions, please continue to post them here or on Talk:Comparative method, and I guess if nobody deals with them while I'm away then I will once I get back. Cheers, sjcollier 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, for reasons I'm leaving at Talk:Comparative method. They're too long and technical to put here. User:Angr 19:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, for mostly the same reasons as Angr; I placed my comments at Talk:Comparative method as well.--AAikio 07:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)