Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nahuatl


 * 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 promoted 19:39, 6 April 2008.

Nahuatl
Self-nominator: User:Maunus I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently passed peerreview and GA nomination and several reviewers expressed that it was ready for the FA process. Also because I will be fully available to adress reviewers concerns within the next 4 days. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: to my reading this is an outstanding article on the core dialect of an important and historic family of languages. I am very impressed with the way a great deal of content is provided — informing linguists, but in language a casual reader can follow. Solid, but relatively available, sources are provided. Personally, I think this entry already stands as an example of the best we are looking to achieve at Wiki. I'm keen to see the FAC process push the boundary further, if possible, with a willing and capable editor (Maunus) standing by. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to request that you put a sample passage and translation into the article, though I don't believe this is required for the FAC to pass. HansHermans (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. It had been on my to do list for awhile. I hope it is to your liking.·Maunus· · ƛ · 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. — Zerida  ☥   05:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to support this article's nomination, but I have some preliminary questions and suggestions:
 * MoS √: One thing that usually catches my attention is punctuation before citations. Since the article mostly follows that style, it should be consistent. I fixed those I found. Some of the citations don't have page numbers, is that on purpose?
 * Examples √: I noticed that the examples in the Grammar section are from Classical Nahuatl, which you contrast with the modern spoken varieties. Would be nice to get an idea of what's going on with spoken Nahuatl today with examples. Also the part about oligosynthesis could use a citation.
 * Syntax √: There is little information under that section besides word order. I suggest renaming the "Syntax" heading to "Word order" unless you're planning to write more about syntax. You already cover some morphosyntax under Nouns and Verbs. The information on word order is also somewhat confusing in that I came out with the impression that the language can have a free word order, or is SVO, or VSO/VOS. Does this vary by language/dialect, or is there one pattern that is more common than others? The information about "omnipredicativity" could use elaboration, perhaps illustrating with an example from the language.
 * Phonology √ : Probably needs an overview of the most common phonological processes. You might want to consider separating vowels and consonants into subsections and briefly explain some sounds that stick out, including allophony. A vowel chart would be a nice visual addition.
 * I don't remember seeing something, but I suggest announcing the nomination on WP:Lang. Someone could probably help create a png image of the vowel chart.
 * Thanks, those are all very good suggestions. I will not be able to apply them during the weekend, but monday and tuesday I will get to work on it. I have made citations to whole books or article when the entire topic of the book illustrates a particular statement, or to a page number when referring to specific statements or passages in a work. Can you be more precise in what you mean with "get an idea of whats going on with the spoken nahuatl today" - I have tried to make such differences clear, especially in the phonology section, particularly since the differences in grammar is an enormously complex topic. (Although I do mention some differences and present one example from a modern dialect with a novel grammatical category)·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If we make a .png-version vowel chart we need a published chart to base it on. Without one, it would be a pure guesstimate.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, a vowel chart would not be maximally useful since we are dealing with a group of languages and not a single language. The precise realisation of vowels in classical nahuatl we cannot know, and it differs widely in all of the modern dialects. We have to stick to very general phonology and leave phonetics for the articles that deal with the specific varieties (e.g. Tetelcingo Nahuatl). ·Maunus· · ƛ · 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I agree it wouldn't be very useful. Thanks for clarifying that; I have struck out comments/questions that have been addressed. It sounds to me like Nahuatl is in a situation similar to that of the Berber languages. From reading the article, I didn't get the sense that there was one particular modern variety that was more standard, or more socially elevated than others. BTW, to answer your question, I think the Grammar section should contain more examples from the modern spoken varieties. Right now there is one from Isthmus-Mecayapan Nahuat. I didn't mean that you should write extensive comparative linguistics; only to add a few more examples from at least one of the documented spoken languages since we already have an article on Classical Nahuatl grammar. If you plan on expanding Syntax, perhaps you could use more modern examples there. — Zerida  ☥   19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I will do that.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I expanded the section on syntax. I have also added a section describing the many changes introduced in modern nahuatl varieties by contact with Spanish - this also constitutes a large part of the literature so it was a needed section, it has several examples from modern varieties. I stroke the oligosynthesis paragraph - whorfs claims were never published and only exist in a microfilmed manuscript in the library of Chicago -The idea never had any impact whatsoever, I don't think it is notable. I am still thinking about what to do with the phonology section.·Maunus· · ƛ · 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is looking better and more informative. Again crossed off points now addressed. With regard to omnipredicativity, the idea that a noun a can function as a full predicative sentence is interesting and unusual--I think a sentence where e.g. an NP carries verbal affixes, or some other way, would help others appreciate this concept better. Looking forward to seeing what you decide to do with phonology. — Zerida  ☥   01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given the phonology section a go and I am fairly content with it. I haven't divided the a sections into separate sections on consonants and vowels - I don't think theres enough material to warrant it: nahuatl has a quite small phoneme inventory and almost no major phonological complexities (except for phenomena in modern dialects which are beyond the scope here). The section on omnipredicativity I don't know how well turned out - I would need you to tell me if its intelligible. The thing is that it is actually extremely complex and shouldn't take too much space in the already long article. If it is intelligible and informative as it is that is good, if not we'll have to work on it a bit more.·Maunus· · ƛ · 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing examples regarding omnipredicativity What an interesting and unusual language . I suggest setting these examples off the main text like you do with your other examples. The phonology section requires a little bit of copyediting, and I think you forgot your citations (an FA criterion). I'm unclear as to why the process /j/ → [] is an example of devoicing--it sounds like there's more going on here than simple change in voice quality. Also, please note that aspiration usually has a more specific meaning in references in English; i.e. a type of secondary articulation. Is this based on a source? If not, I suggest sticking to lenition for this process as well, assuming the consonants in question become [h] based on your description. Please avoid statements that could potentially be interpreted as weasel words; e.g., "in certain kinds of syllables..." without being more specific. An FA is not a work in progress, so statements like these are subject to more scrutiny (though no need to feel rushed; FA reviews can take time). — Zerida  ☥   04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided references for the pghonology section. I have provided a specific reference for the devoicing of /j/ to [] - which is the way it is described in most grammars (because the allophone occurs in all voiceless environments). I have often in english texts seen an /h/ sound with little or no friction described as "aspiration". I don't see how "certain kinds of syllables" could be seen as weasel words - there is simply no way I can be more specific - the kinds of syllables that are affected can vary from dialect to dialect - the only thing that is general is that only some syllables are lost and that which are lost is governed by some phonological rules. I don't see how i can be more specific here, or why I need to - if you have a better wording in mind I urge you to put it in. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment re Weasling. Most weasles are negative qualifiers, not all negative qualifiers are weasles. I think there are two issues with weasles. They are a problem when used to inject POV by undermining assertions of a contrary opinion. They are also a problem when used to disguise lack of research.
 * POV weasle: The US Defense Department claimed alleged progress in the "war on terror" in a recent press release.
 * Fudging weasle: Some studies on climate change suggest man-made factors increasingly stand out against known background cycles and random factors. [only two direct studies cited and no meta studies]
 * I expect there are other species of weasle and we should be ever vigilant to ensure their extinction.
 * In the current case, I think this is a fine example of a valid searching challenge from Zerida, and a humble not guilty adequately explained by Maunus. Congratulations to both. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I think the article is comprehensive and the prose is excellent. I learned quite a bit about Nahuatl, and now hope to see an article on Nahuatl phonology on Wikipedia. I edited out the part about aspiration, which seemed a bit iffy to me in the absence of a citation, but it's not necessary to specify a name for this process. I hope this is OK. As these are minor details, and the article meets FA critera, I feel comfortable enough to support. — Zerida  ☥   02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: just noting a few misc. and minor points that could be tweaked, while the FA review is just getting underway in earnest:
 * Lead section: "...dialect spoken by the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan becoming a prestige language throughout Mesoamerica in this period." Does "throughout Mesoamerica" need to be qualified here?
 * History section: it's initially stated that proto-Nahuatl speakers came into Mesoam. "around AD 500", but in the next para the Pochutec are placed in coastal Oaxaca "possibly as early as AD 400." Not necessarily incompatible approximations I s'pose, but maybe cld be tweaked so it doesn't sound contradictory.
 * Next sentence: "...Nahuan speakers quickly rose to power in central Mexico." The phrase "rose to power" prob. implies some sort of actual hegemony, but I'm not sure that (most of) the sources on this period (ca. 7thC) are really stating this. Perhaps reword?
 * While on this topic of the early-mid Classic period discussed in this section, it might be appropriate to have a sentence or two on Teotihuacan. I realise history is not the main focus of the article, but I think the unresolved Q. as to Teo's linguistic affiliations is an important-enough topic to be mentioned, if we are trying to set the scene for Nahuatl's presence and spread in this region. In note #15 the reference to the hypothesis (eg Dakin & Wichmann's) of Nahuatl in Teo is a veiled one. Without going too much into it, it could be useful to at least note more explicitly. What do you think?
 * Geog. dist. section: Citation for the statement that Pochutec died out in the 1930s is given as Boaz (1917). Seems to be a mismatch in the dates here, pls check.
 * Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, on all accounts CJLLW. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 15:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now adressed your concerns CJJLW. I hope it is better.·Maunus· · ƛ · 07:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE
 * That guideline might be a reasonable sentiment, however the "cite x" family of templates are not entirely consistent within themselves, at present. In particular, cite news formats the publ. date to the end of the citation, instead of immediately following the author. In any case citation is not used in the bibliography section where I think formatting consistency would be important. It's used only once or twice in the footnotes. I think, this should not be a show-stopper?
 * I'm not opposing at all (I honestly don't know enough about languages to review an article on them). I've just been told that mixing the two can at times lead to odd errors. I've never seen them, but Sandy said something about it once. It's an advisory note (grins), nothing more. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, have addressed these in the article and in replies to the points above; pls re-review. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 07:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comment The article needs more copyediting, and the History section begs for maps showing a birds-eye view of the distribution of languages or dialects at major time points. Many people reading this article will need to consult a map to follow the text.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the map which I had removed at an earlier point with the intention to reinsert it later (I then forgot about it).·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead mentions "Central Mexico"; where exactly is that? --Una Smith (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * it is a not uncommon way to describe the area containing Valley of Mexico and the surrounding valleys. (mexico being originally only the name of Mexico city)·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Out of four editors who have had suggestions for improvement three four are now supporting - the fourth (HansHermans) has not been back, in fact his comment here is his most recent edit (I have placed this message on his user page). CJJLW is probably reluctant to support or fails the article since he is another major contributor to it. AlastairHaines did not have any comments except praise (he may also feel that as a peerreviewer he shouldn refrain from supporting, I don't know).·Maunus· · ƛ · 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I think this is on par with the other featured language articles. I will copyedit out any little problems that I find, but there don't seem to be many. HansHermans (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes: there are a lot of little fixes needed still, see my edit summaries.  It may help to ask User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check.  There's a faulty dash in the infobox that I can't locate; I asked Gimmetrow to have a look.  There is a lot going on visually in this article, with about six different font faces in use (the normal one, bolding, italics, something different in sources and then two more at Nahuatl); are that many different font styles necessary?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dash fixed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All fonts and formatting used in the article is present in other language FA's.·Maunus· · ƛ · 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the fact that other articles have done it is a good reason for having six different fontfaces in an article, which is visually distracting and may not be good page design, but MoS doesn't seem to deal with this. Page numbers are handled inconsistently (example, ^ Lockhart (1992), pp. 327–329  and ^ Lockhart (1992), pp.330–335), I came across some WP:DASH and WP:MOS punctuation issues, and there are some missing language icons; these things won't prevent promotion, but should be cleaned up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.