Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Internet linguistics/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:46, 14 November 2010.

Internet linguistics

 * Nominator(s): Lai eric (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the field of Internet linguistics is expanding rapidly as more people across the globe becomes connected to the Web. My team and I from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore have put in a great deal of effort in researching and putting together information and research materials about this relatively new branch of linguistics. We started off working on this page when it was a stub and through our collaborative effort, we believe that the article has met the criteria of a featured article. We look forward to suggestions and contributions from the rest of the Wikipedian community in the collaborative spirit of knowledge sharing. Thank you. Lai eric (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, looks like rather interesting subject matter, but the whole article needs to be proofread and checked for MOS compliance. Here's some random samples of problems from a cursory skimming. I think the article would benefit greatly from peer review and sending it to GA first, where most of these problems can be spotted and fixed. (P.S. if you take it to peer review, you might want to give Rjanag a ping, he has experience with both FAC writing and linguistics). Sasata (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * lead is too short to properly summarize the article
 * article title shouldn't be repeated in headings
 * shouldn't be spaces between punctuation and citation
 * why are the "Perspectives" capitalized?
 * "four main perspectives for further investigation - The Sociolinguistic Perspective" should be a dash, not a hyphen
 * "The four perspectives are effectively interlinked and affect one another. Starting with the examination of Internet linguistics from the sociolinguistics perspective, it moves on to the educational and stylistic perspectives and eventually leads to the applied perspective…" what does the "it" refer to?
 * "SMS Text Messaging" what is SMS?
 * "These concerns are neither without grounds nor unseen in history – it surfaces almost always when a new technology breakthrough influences languages" awkward
 * too many short paragraphs
 * "… suspect that widespread mistakes in writing is strongly connected to Internet usage …" is->are
 * "This is what makes blogs stand out because almost all other forms of printed language has gone through some form of editing and standardization." has->have
 * Thank Sasata for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on sourcing
 * I notice many uncited POV statements. Examples:-
 * "Despite the on-going debate, there is no doubt that Twitter has contributed to the linguistic landscape with new lingos and also brought about a new dimension of communication."
 * "These developments in interactive blogging have created much more new linguistic conventions and stylistics, with the number expected to rise in future."
 * "The result of a move towards more formal usages will be a medium representing a range of formal and informal stylistics."
 * "The number found through the search engines are more than three times the counts generated by the British National Corpus, indicating the significant size of the English corpus available on the Web."
 * ...and many more, throughout the article.
 * Why are none of the long list of "Books dealing with Internet Linguistics" used as sources in the article?
 * Many of your citations lack publisher details. Information such as "Online article", "Research Paper", "News article" etc is not adequate. See, for example, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and many more.
 * Ref 58 is a dead link
 * There are minor MOS nitpicks relating to reference formatting, but these can be picked up when the major issues, above, have been addressed.

There are also several disambiguation links to be fixed (use the toolbox, upper right on this page, to identify. This article has no review history or talkpage discussion; FAC should not be the initial review stage. The article is clearly unready for FAC and should be withdrawn. It needs to be carefully reviewed in the Peer Review process before returning here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank Brianboulton for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is evidently not up to FA standards; I suggest taking it through a thorough Peer Review and GA nomination before returning here. Don't get me wrong, this has the potential to be a very good article, but it is not there yet. wacky  wace  10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank wacky  wace  for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is an interesting topic, and a good deal of work has gone into it, but there is just too much that needs fixing for it to be done here. i can only agree with the suggestion that it's honed elsewhere before returning to the bear pit. Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank Jimfbleak for your valuable feedbacks. We have worked on the points raised, and have listed it in the Good Article nominations section. We hope to have the article back here after further improvements. We would greatly appreciate your kind review. Lai eric (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.