Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English language/archive1

English language
English language is the world's most widely taught second language. One-third of the world's population can speak some English. There is no reason that there are objections. 202.40.210.164 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Object: a couple of things to begin with. 1) No clear references section. 2) Lack of flow to the structure. Some sections (e.g. the Constructed variants and Sounds sections) are just thrown at the reader with no introduction. Too many list-like sections. Some very short paragraphs. Overall, not a very good example of the English language. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object: a complete, well-written article, but there is no References section, and there are very little graphics/no photos. Ronline 09:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * undefined 185.156.72.9 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

**Just as a matter of interest, what photos would you expect to see? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) question answered below. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Object I agree with the previous points raised: poor flow, lack of clear references, too much list-like prose.  The "history" section, at the very least, could be illustrated with photos of significant manuscripts (from Anglo-Saxon on up).  It's always worth combing Featured Pictures to see if anything is germane.  Anville 09:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gallery of illuminated manuscript images may also be a good place to start a hunt for appropriate images. If none of the images in this gallery, or the galleries listed in the See also section, are appropriate then the image description pages should provide useful links to libraries and museums that have images of historical manuscripts available. Another possibility is authors who have had a major influence on the development of English such as Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare. --Allen3 talk 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I HIGHLY encourage a part discussing the impact Chaucer and Shakespeare had on the language, as that is sadly little known. I have studied both extensivly in university classes and have come to the conclusion that English would look nothing like it does today at all without these two men. According to many sources, Chaucer is responsible for the vast majority of England's interest in the language. That is to say, many people who spoke either local celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, or other languages learned English specifically so they could read Chaucer. My understanding is that before him, it was mostly just a language used for trade and not used much in private. As for Shakespeare, I've heard the play Hamlet alone contributed 500 new words to the English language. In fact, were it not for him, we would be retireing to sleeping chambers at night rather than bedrooms, as the word bedroom did not exist before he used it. Out of all of the authors who have ever written in English before or since, Shakespeare's works contain more total vocabulary than any other. Contrafool 08:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. The main reason you nominated it was its epic importance, so we shouldn't let it be featured until it is at the very paramount of our standards. --  user:zanimum


 * Object The article does a fair job, but most of the objections listed above do seem quite valid and proper considering the nature of the article itself. To my POV, Filiocht says it best here: "Overall, not a very good example of the English language." One part that really irritates me about the article (aside from the quality of the content dealing with earlier incarnations of English) is the "External Links" section. It is begging for a Wiki-scythe to come sweeping away the weeds.  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  02:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)