Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hebrew grammar/archive1

Hebrew grammar
This article gives lots of information, in a non-biased and clear manner. It uses Wikiformatting in a good way, and is divided into quick sections. It doesn't have pictures, because it doesn't need them. At the end, it clearly lists its sources. I therefore think that it should be a Wikipedia Featured Article. What do you think? D  a niel (‽) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as the proposer. See reasons above. D  a niel (‽) 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now.


 * I'm a fan of that article (I should be — I've contributed to it a lot), but I'm not sure it should be a featured article at this point. My concerns are as follows:
 * When I go to edit the article, I get a message reading, "This page is 41 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." (That said, this is rather easily remedied, by splitting up the article into subarticles, and using summary style.)
 * Yes, there are references at the end, but the article doesn't actually cite any of them. (This is much more work to remedy; people with relevant reference works will need to make sure the article is in accord with them and cite accordingly.)
 * A lot of major points are missing. For example, there's no discussion of pronouns; someone could read the entire article without learning that object pronouns are suffixes rather than separate words.
 * Pronunciations are given using an ad hoc romanization. As it happens, I think the article's romanization is actually a good one; but it's never explained, and it differs from the one that's used (and that is explained) at Hebrew language. (I think the best fix here is to change the romanization at Hebrew language, and to state at Hebrew grammar that we're using the romanization described at Hebrew language.)
 * (To be honest, I think these are things that should be fixed regardless of whether this becomes a Featured Article; but your proposal gave it some urgency.)
 * Ruakh 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have a basic understanding of Hebrew language. From the factual standpoint this article is very good and if FAC were purely about information, this would have my support, however, there are elements to how this is presneted which go agasin't wikipedia policy and which don't look good.  The lead section is very short, and the text it does have is not an introduction, but rather somewhat tangantial.  The table of contents is massively overwhelming.  Most of it's sections are very short, so I sugest doing what World War II did, and replace the minor section headers with bold text, so that the table of conents isn't grabled with minor stuff.  With most articles I would say that you need more than 2 refs, but this one is an exception.  Most Hebrew speakers (My guess is that the people writing the article speak Hebrew) can write this article from knowlage, thus I don't think verfifibiltiy is a huge problem here, but I do think that the refs you do have, which are necisary to fulfil wikipedia policy are good, but not presneted right.  Usualy, numbered refs are unsed when di0splaying inline citations.  Since this article has none, the refs should just be displayed with bullet points.  I think that an admazing amount of the text in this aticle is displayed in lists.  although I think that list are a good way to display information, and an easy way to find information, this article uses it to the extreme.  There are some places where the bullet points should just be made intro paragraphs.  Lists are good here and there, but this isn't a featured collection of lists canidate, it's a featured article canidate, meaning that it needs more text.  The lists are great supporting it, but it's too much.  Also I disagree with the nominator in that I think that this article needs pics desprately.  This page looks dull as it is.  Giev it a few pics for color.  It will be more attarctive, and will make people want to read it.  Also, an article can't be on the main page without at least one pic.  If these objections are adressed, ill change my vote.  (I admit, this is long, but I felt passionate about this one.) - Tobyk777 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to peer review.
 * The lead should be in accordance with WP:LEAD.
 * Subsections should utmost [sic] be one-level deep.
 * One can think of book cover images, or screenshots of grammar checkers, any special orthographic detail - (the RTL to LTR shift during code-switch?)
 * Will support once these issues are fixed. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Question. By "utmost," do you mean "at most"? If not, could you explain that sentence? Thanks. Ruakh 12:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad. I meant at most. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly object: it seems to be based on the article on English grammar, which is in a mess. This FAC portrays Hebrew grammar in a very narrow sense, i.e., in terms of word classification, based on no larger structure than the sentence, and assuming that the written mode is the only one worth discussing. So much is missing that it fails Criterion 2c by a long shot. It ends up being superficial. Tony 10:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)