Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sentence spacing/archive2


 * 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 23:54, 27 May 2010.

Sentence spacing

 * Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article status because it was an FAC before and adjustments have been made according to the comments. Also, a thorough peer review was conducted and those adjustments were made as well. The readable prose is now about 4150 words and is less than 32kb. The comprehensive reference list and bibliography were deemed necessary because this is a controversial topic.

Numerous minor adjustments were made. Major changes to the article include:


 * 1. Split lengthy sub-sections into their own articles.
 * 2. Reworked "style guide" section to address WP:WORLDVIEW comments.
 * 3. Reduced wordiness/verbosity throughout. Airborne84 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. No dab links or dead external links. In the lead, you mention the "1800s". That is ambiguous: is it the period from 1800 to 1809 or from 1800 to 1899? Ucucha 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed "1800s" to "19th century." --Airborne84 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ucucha 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * 1. Digital age: I see "behaviour" as well as "behavior", stick to one kind of English: British/American
 * Fixed. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the British "grey" in the quote? I suppose a "gray" in the bracket or something is needed for consistency. Not sure-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:MoS for quotations says to "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation" unless there's a reason to make a change. In this case, it's probably just better to leave as is. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 File:Example of french-spaced text (1874).jpg: The watermark of Google books can be removed
 * Watermark removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. "Most debate is about whether to strike a keyboard's spacebar once or twice between sentences" a new idea in the lead, needs to be something in the sections too, also needs a reference
 * Didn't think this one was controversial, but added a reference. No problem. The "keyboard striking" is mentioned again in the "History" and "Controversy" sections. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 4. File:Double and single sentence spaced text examples - US government publications.jpg: the left side of the image has a blurred grey outline (maybe an impression of what on the back page). Suitably replace or clean the image.
 * I'll look at this again. I think the people that scanned all these government typewritten documents from that era didn't have very good scanners. That was the best one I found—with all the key typewriter conventions on it. I'll look again. Done. Replaced left side of image with another. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The replacement has cut words on the boundary, which is every distracting. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try again. It's tricky to compare images of text in these cases. I could make the area larger, but then the text would look smaller than the text on the right side. I can expand the text on the right side to match by reducing resolution, but that doesn't look good. However, if the current image isn't going to work, I'll try to tweak it. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. The image is replaced. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 5. It is unclear what Double spacing exactly is from para 2 of the lead. Maybe rework the para by changing the sequence of sentences. Single spacing -> problem ("It was felt that ..") -> Double spacing definition
 * Rewording would have worked too. Think it might still have required a few additional clarifying words, so just added them. Done. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. Style guides: I was a little confused: "The most widely-used style guide in Italy, Il Nuovo Manuale di Stile (2009),[52]" the reference for a 2009 book is a Lesina, Roberto (a 1994 book)? Absurd. The problem seems to be the year of the first edition is not noted. Most of the style guides' dates are from 2000 onwards, possibly their first edition dates are also not noted. Also "The most widely-used style guide in Italy" needs a reference.
 * Mostly done. Done. Fixed the date and citation information for the 2009 edition of the manual. I should be able to find a reference in Italian easily enough - the problem is translating. If it becomes a problem, I'll just delete that wording tomorrow. Changed text to describe scope of the manual instead. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Replacing the reference is not the solution. The first edition dates reflect the oldness of the manual. How many years is a guide been used? Later editions usually have minor changes-- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Could you clarify what you mean here? The 1st edition is from 1986 (2nd edition - 1994, and Edition 2.0 in 2009). The current edition (2009) is what's referenced now. Do you mean that the footnote should mention that the first edition is from 1986? Although my source from Italy told me this is the most widely-used style guide in Italy (WP:OR), I gave up trying to translate pages to get a reference to support that. I thought that simply describing its scope (general + academic use) was useful. It's also possible to simply delete the entire sentence and reference, but is there a fix that you have in mind that would preserve this instead? --Airborne84 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have addressed this. I used only the most current editions that were available for all works in the "Style guides" section. (The "History" section is different, of course.) I didn't note the first date of publication for any of them. Rather than address this topic with only this particular reference, I adjusted the text in the intro paragraph for the "Style guide" section. It now identifies style guides "published after 1990", as opposed to "current". If this doesn't address your comment, please let me know. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) IMO, "Style Manual: For Authors, Editors and Printers (2007), first published in 1966" is the best wording, the latest version as well as first edition date is given. The history is also reflected. Anyway, History section does not cover these style guides. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I decided the best way to handle this was to put the first date of publication in the notes. Reasons:
 * 1. In the last FAC and the peer review, a recurring theme was verbosity and wordiness. A recurring recommendation was to strike all unneccessary wording and commentary.
 * 2. The Oxford Manual of Style was combined in 2003, so it reads as: "The 2003 edition of the Oxford Style Manual combined the Oxford Guide to Style (first published as Horace Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford in 1893) and the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (first published as the Authors' and Printers' Dictionary in 1905)." I thought that was just too much to put in the text (especially given #1 above). I left the "Style Manual: For Authors, Editors and Printers (2007), first published in 1966 by the Commonwealth Government Printing Office of Australia" in the article text to address a comment in the previous FAC nomination. An editor said that the article didn't sufficiently encompass the entire English-speaking world. In this case, I used the extra note in the text to include the "Commonwealth" internal link. The first printing date didn't have to go with it, it just seemed to sound better as worded. So, that is the only exception to the "First printing date in the footnotes" task that I just completed. I hope this addresses your concern. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The notes are good but let's be practical, people usually do not read all notes. The history is still not reflected. Someone may be deceived by the dates, most after 2000. It gives an impression that only recently guides are addressing the problem that originated in the 1890s. Anyway, this is my opinion. If this remains the only issue that stops this article from FA, then I would request the issue be ignored (others' comments are requested to form a consensus), though I would insist in the long term (not necessary for FA status for this article) that in the daughter article Sentence spacing in language and style guides, this issue be addressed with explicit dates in the main text. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I think the first date of publication would be a good addition to the daughter article as you mention. It's tough to reconcile here since there were so many previous comments along the lines of "remove all unnecessary wording." So, I think your idea is the right way to go. Also, the "style guides" section is intended to reflect only the most recent editions ("published after 1990"). I had considered using the word "Current" in front of "Literature" for that major section heading, but decided against it. The last paragraph in the "History" section discusses the movement of style guides to single sentence-spacing beginning in the 1990s. That's when the major shift started to happen (although that could be better outlined in the other daughter article History of sentence spacing). It might have been useful to repeat that in the first para of the "Style guides" section, but I ruthlessly removed repetitive information based on the last FAC nomination—so that's where we are now. Thanks again for your comments. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments! --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please do not strike comments on your own. Let the reviewer/closing delegate (if reviewer does not return) examine if the issue is closed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm relatively new at the FAC page. My fault. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: It is difficult to navigate through the Notes and References sections as presently organised. The main problems are:
 * The notes are very laboriously formatted, with the full spelling out of source details when this information is already contained in the References list. In [42] for example, you could avoid much repetition by "Baugh, p. 200", "Cutts, p. 79" etc
 * Yes, I used a technique where the first time a source was used, I spelled it out fully. Second and later uses were "shortened". You are right though that the full source is listed in each case in the references. It's not an undertaking that I would begin lightly, but if you think it is a necessary change to become an FA, I will go through and reformat the endnotes—using short citations. Please let me know—or other editors feel free to weigh in on this matter. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. All inline citations listed in the "References" are "short cited" now. This took...a while...but the article is the better for it now. Thanks for the useful comment. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the notes have lengthy text attached. [120] is a mini-essay. I assume that these notes are quotations from the cited source; if so, why are they are necessary? Surely the object of a citation is to indicate the source, not replicate it?
 * The use of explanatory text and elaboration in endnotes is an accepted technique at Wikipedia. See for example, Starship Troopers, Rosa Parks or Absinthe. While reducing the readable prose, in some cases, I moved the information to footnotes. In other cases I deleted it or moved it to a sister article. Other editors also used explanatory notes in some citations. I believe it is worthwhile to keep them for two reasons: 1. People read the endnotes. I have seen a number of "m" (minor) edits within the endnotes in the past month. I'd hate to reduce or remove material that people are reading. 2. This is a topic of heated debate on the Internet. People will happily attack insufficiently supported material, as can be seen in threads in the talk page before the citations finally reached a level of reliability where it was rather silly to attack them. In some cases (on this page and other related ones), people simply didn't believe the WP:RSs I had listed because they were in books and were not immediately verifiable (as irrelevant as that is under WP:V. I solved that problem by adding text in endnotes for some citations. Others have additional material that supplements the cited material. For this subject, the standard of reliability will be held to a higher level than normally seen on Wikipedia.
 * Having said that, I'll agree that some of the endnotes are lengthy. I'm not sure that detracts from the article as an FAC though. I think the readable prose is what's important to the average reader. Those sufficiently interested to delve into the endnotes may appreciate the additional material. Of course, I'm open to making adjustments if editors feel that it is necessary. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't press this (it's not really a sources issue). If other editors take the matter up, you will no doubt respond to them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder about over-citation; are all the multiple citations necessary? Does the first simple statement, that sentence spacing is a matter of typographical convention, really need citing to three separate sources? Does [42] really require seven citations?
 * The short answer is yes. Again, the entire article will be vigorously attacked without the high standard mentioned above. If you look at some of the threads in the talk page, you will see editors here that vigorously disagreed that sentence spacing is a matter of typographical convention (based on their personal opinion). This was when the statment was supported with only one or two reliable references at the time. Now that it is well supported, that claim has stopped. I used multiple citations in other cases that were controversial also. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have adjusted the format of multiple citations, and it looks much tidier now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The online references at the end of the list are not properly formatted, generally lacking publisher information and last access dates.
 * Working... Done. Used full cite web template for each link. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments on the notes. I'd welcome any thoughts on my responses above, as well as a "support" or "oppose" on the article itself when your concerns are addressed. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Online references 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 121 all lack publisher and retrieval date. 114 lacks publisher info. I can't figure out the format of 113. (Note: I'd prefer to strike out my points when I'm happy they have been addressed. Thanks) Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm relatively new at the FAC page. My fault. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. All of the "Notes" are now in the same format and reflect their full inline citation templates respectively. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Microsoft (ref. 104) and Sheerin (112) are listed in "Further Reading". As cited sources they need to be promoted to the main References list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Good catch. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources themselves, at a glance, look sound enough but I would welcome some response on the above points. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and referencing points now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and was asked to comment here. While the article has improved, I still find multiple problems with it. Some of these points follow.
 * The article spends a fair amount of time on the differences between American and British spacing (double) and various European countries spacing (single). The lead does not really mention this beyond the Englsih spacing / French spacing names, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article.
 * Working. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. I added some text that expanded on this topic in the second paragraph of the lede. Moved the later sentence that introduced French spacing to align with this. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are places where the article seems to disagree with itself or have errors or very unfortunate typos - for an example of the latter: "Mechanical type systems introduced near the end of the 20th century, such as the Linotype and Monotype machines, allowed variable sentence-spacing.[25]" Linotype and Monotype were introduced in the late 19th century (not 20th).
 * Fixed. That was indeed an unfortunate error. There's been quite a bit of "century" formatting going on recently (some by me in response to an FAC comment above), so I'll scrub through again to ensure accuracy in this area. If you had any other issues in mind here besides the dates, please let me know. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me reread the article and see if I can find other examples. SOrry to be so slow in responding. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the History section the article seems to contradict itself on French practice. First it says Early American, English, French, and other European typesetters' style guides (also known as printers' rules) specified spacing standards that were all essentially identical from the 18th century onwards. but two sentences later the article says Yet, even in this period, there were some countries (notably France) that used a standard word space between sentences—a technique called French spacing (illustration below). Which is it? Were the French "essentially identical" or were they different?
 * Addressed. An excellent comment. Some of these sentences were here before I arrived at the article (although that's not an excuse). I deleted the word "French" in the list of historical style guides because the references do not list a French style guide. I qualified the "French spacing" usage by identifying "some publishing houses (notably in France)". This more general statement is more accurate since I have no secondary sources that state what percentage of French publishing houses used French spacing and how many used traditional spacing. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of History needs a ref (as does the last sentence of the next to last paragraph)
 * Done. No problem. I realized when I started this that I might need a reference for every sentence. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article on double spacing is used as a source in the article and says "Doubling the word space after a sentence-ending period does not come from the use of typewriters. It was an existing practice that found practical application there." This view point is not mentioned here.
 * Addressed. It was, it just wasn't explained well. I added the sentence, "Although only a single type block was typically used, this resulted in the appearance of about a double space between sentences" in the first paragraph of the "History" section. The previous sentence alluded to that, but wasn't explicit enough. This is also why I use the wording "striking the space bar twice" throughout the article. Professional typesetters could "double the word space" between sentences by using "em space" (or other size) type blocks. Typists (on typewriters) could only double a word space by hitting the space bar twice. So, when Felici's webpage says "doubling the word space" didn't come from typewriters, that's true for the most part. I think the article better reflects that point now. And it was a good point. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is harder to quantify, but to me a FA needs to flow well and tell a good story. This article really does not do this for me (theough the source above does). this is a criterion 1a issue.
 * OK, I looked through and think I see what you mean. Some of this is "low hanging fruit" that can be addressed by better transitions between sections. I'll do that in the next 24 hours and see if that works. If not, it may require a bit of an expansion in the history section and a few more tweaks throughout. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't start on this yet, but I thought about it. This may be the most useful comment on the article in the FAC nom. Of course, it requires the most comprehensive change. I think a rearrangement of the article (while retaining the content) best addresses this. I'm considering placing a section after the "History" section called "Transition to single spacing" that incorporates the last two paragraphs in the "History" section and transitions into "modern" or "Current literature." This might be best done by leading with the changes in style guides over the last 20-30 years (I'd have to incorporate a bit more material for this), and then examining the most current editions of language, grammar, and typography guides. The "digital age" section (summarized after splitting this section into it's own article) could then follow, completing the movement through time to the present day. This transitions to the controversy that still exists in 2010. The studies would come last. From my point of view, the studies are more relevant than the controversy section, but it would probably flow better to put the controversy after the digital age section since the studies encompass a much longer period (starting in the 1950s). I'd be very hesitant to try to break up the "studies" section. What would be gained by ensuring a complete historical flow from start to finish would be offset by making it harder for obtain all the data from the studies section. From reading through 70+ blog and other discussion sites on this topic, I can tell you that claims about readability and legibility are thrown around aplenty and I've never seen a single study cited when someone is challenged. This is the first summary of direct and related studies that exists. Any thoughts before I start? I'd hate to finish and find that other editors think another way was better, or I misinterpreted your above comment (even though I think these changes would be for the better anyway). --Airborne84 (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. I rearranged the article's structure, expanded the history section, and improved the transitions between sections to make more of a "flow" throughout the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me re-read it and comment then, thanks. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick re-read and it flows much better, thanks (and good work). I still have some very specific comments and will do my best to add them in the next 6 to 7 hours. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is now a question of the factual accuracy of the Transition to single spacing section (tag in the article and discussion on the talk page). Please resolve that first, then I will make more comments here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Studies section, the article cites an article indirectly " Direct studies include those by "Loh, Branch, Shewanown, & Ali (2002), Clinton, Branch, Holschuh, & Shewanown (2003) and Ni, Branch & Chen (2004)" with inconclusive results favoring single or double spacing.[71] as ref 71 is by Leonard et al., but the Leonard paper itself is not mentioned explicitly, which just seems odd.
 * The "Leonard et al." source isn't a study itself. It's a summary of a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation at the 2009 IVLA conference where the research team at the University of Georgia presented the findings of the 2009 study used in this article (Ni et al. 2009). The abstract in the "Leonard et al." Web source provided a summary of the other studies that was not in the 2009 study. The abstract itself also provides some points that might be interesting to readers of this article. Partially because of that, I used it as a source. This is available on the Web, whereas the studies are not. The studies published/presented in the annual IVLA conferences are only available by purchasing the entire IVLA conference bulletins—at $20 each. There are surely other ways to handle this, so if you see a better way, I'm certainly open to making an adjusment. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope these comments are useful. I am having computer issues and may be offline for the next day or two - sorry, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Let me say first of all that I think this is a considerable tour de force. I'd never imagined that so much could be written on the subject of single vs. double spacing.
 * Thanks for the critical look. I think I can address your concerns. Please let me know what responses do not fully address them. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That leads me to my major concern about this article though, with respect to FA criteria 4, its focus.
 * I don't know if I addressed this concern adequately below. Please let me know if I did not. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The penultimate paragraph of the Related studies section, for instance, begins "Some studies suggest that readability can be improved by breaking sentences into separate units of thought—or varying the internal spacing of sentences." Yes, but what does this have to do with sentence spacing?
 * Addressed. I added an explanation for this in the text of the article. You're right, it wasn't immediately apparent for people that aren't familiar with the controversy. Although I introduced most of these concepts in the "Controversy" section, it's better off explained up front in this section. In this case, people that promote double-spacing state that breaking sentences up into separate units of thought makes text more readable. The studies discussed here analyze breaking phrases within sentences into separate units of thought. I included them because I didn't want this to turn into a "double-space bashing" article. Some of the results from these studies seemed to support the idea that "breaking text into separate units of thought improves readability". From my viewpoint, that helped balance the article and alleviate possible NPOV assertions. Because of numerous comments to "remove all extraneous verbiage" from the article, I moved most of the text related to these stud(ies) to the endnotes. In an effort to be careful about interpreting the results of these studies, I decided to summarize the results as neutrally as possible with the word "inconclusive". I would be happy to add some text back in along the lines that "some of these studies supported (xxx) idea" in favor of double-spacing as noted above. I just don't want editors claiming that I'm personally interpreting the studies in a synthesis. I'd be happy to hear your ideas on this. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm particularly concerned about the Style guides section, which seems largely to tell us that most style guides offer no guidance on the matter of sentence spacing, but themselves use single spacing, which seems to be at least within shouting distance of original research. Same with the Language guides section.
 * I understand your concern, but I think it's reasonable to handle this in this manner. My rationale:
 * 1. The Modern Language Association (of America) states that they allow double sentence spacing in manuscripts, but expressly uses single-spacing in their text examples in the MLA Handbook and the MLA Style Manual "because it is increasingly common for papers and manuscripts to be prepared with a single space after all punctuation marks". I used that as a reference in the article to note that publications use their own text to provide examples for users as to their recommendation for style. Most style and language guides that I've seen (and I've seen more than I'd care to admit here) provide pages with examples of text that identifies correct style for a number of different conventions and style points. It would have been possible to provide dozens of style guide sources and specific page numbers that note that, but I thought it unnecessary since the MLA provides a useful source for this.
 * 2. Other than the U.S., Canada and the U.K., most other countries (as limited by the scope in the lede) never used double-spacing. Typeset text used larger single spaces, but typists (typewriter users) in those countries were not taught to "double space." That's from my research, which is original, so of course, it's not included. I'm just explaining here why those style guides and language guide don't discuss this topic. Covering the style and language guides in those countries and simply nothing that they use the single space seemed to be the only good way to adhere to WP:WORLDVIEW. The alternative was not mentioning these guides at all, but that was a central theme in the first FAC nomination—lacking in "worldview". So, I had to address it. I see no good way of reconciling both of these competing issues adequately other than the method I chose. However, there may well be another method that I didn't consider. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. I added another component which helps the comments about how the "style guides are themselves spaced" make more sense. I showed the sentence spacing progression in key style guides over time, both in the spacing of their text examples, and in their explicit instructions. I also deleted the paragraph on news style guides which listed a large number of style guides (which were "themselves single sentence spaced"), since it is reflected in the main article. I think this strikes a fair compromise. Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia (carefully), and this article now adequately addresses WP:WORLDVIEW in response to the previous FAC nomination (or does so in my opinion at least). --Airborne84 (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some parts even read like a "how to ..." manual, this from the Digital age section, for instance: "However, writers who wish to use wider sentence spacing should avoid striking the space bar twice—as this creates a no-break space which can lead to uneven justified text and additional unwanted spaces or line breaks in the text." From the Web browsers section: "In order to force a web browser to display multiple spaces, a special character sequence must be used (such as " " for an en-space followed by a thin space, " " for an em-space, or " " for two successive full spaces)."
 * When I first found this article it had an impressive array of bewildering "how to" items on this topic related to computers. I summarized them all...a lot, and discarded extraneous material. On the face of it, these items are useful for an encyclopedia. For example, if I come here (like I did) asking the question of "Do I use one space or two, and why?" I might see that the style guide I used said "single space." However, since I personally prefer the additional spacing of traditional spacing (an em space), I might then say, "OK, but in my DTP work, I want to use a slightly larger space." "How do I do that?" Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) provides the answer.
 * Having said that, I split two lengthy sections out into "sister articles". I went back and forth on whether to split out "Digital age" from this article and summarize it's contents here. I didn't because I didn't want to reduce its comprehensiveness—as one of the FAC criteria. No one else has noted a serious issue with the entire section in this manner, but it's a useful note nonetheless. I'd welcome your comments (and other editors) on whether this section should be split into its own article and its contents summarized in a paragraph or two. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Split "digital age" into a sister (main) article and summarized its contents—eliminating "how to" items in this article. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead needs to be rewritten as well I think. Why is Johannes Gutenberg introduced so early on, or indeed at all?
 * It's a limitation for the article which only considers printed/typeset text. This seemed like a reasonable way to exclude handwritten text, which becomes a topic meriting inclusion once you consider books over about 100 years old. The article's scope could alternatively be explained in a hatnote, I suppose. I just thought this was a decent way to do it. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Replaced Gutenberg reference with "introduction of movable type printing in Europe." --Airborne84 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we restricting the discussion to Latin-derived alphabets? If so, why? What about languages using the cyrillic alphabet for instance. Is there something different about those other alphabets that meant this question of single vs. double spacing didn't arise, or is the title of this article wrong?
 * When I first encountered this article it needed a lot of work. There were a couple of bullets about Tibetan and other text that didn't really say anything and added nothing to the article. Although "double" spacing (striking the keyboard twice) was primarily used only in English, other aspects of the article (e.g. French spacing) merited inclusion. Historical (or traditional) spacing was also relevant in many other Indo-European languages, especially German. However, once you depart from languages using a Latin-derived alphabet, this topic becomes irrelevant. Opening this article to Sanscrit, Cyrillic, Cuniform, Hieroglyphics, Chinese, Japanese characters, etc. unnecessarily complicates the article and adds little to the topic. I would have mentioned this in a footnote, but that also smacks of WP:OR. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it's a considerable piece of work, but it leaves me with more questions than answers. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given this comment, perhaps the addition of a FAQ section on the talk page might be a good idea? Sourcing the information above about Sanscrit, Cyrillic, etc. in a footnote in the article itself would be an extremely onerous task. People don't write about sentence spacing in those languages because it's a non-issue. If you have other thoughts about how to address this, I'd be happy to hear them. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added FAQ page to the talk page. However, I think my adjustments to the article address the main questions you referred to—in the article itself. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


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