Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vulgar Latin/archive1

Vulgar Latin
Mostly a self-nomination. I am curious whether other folks can follow it, and whether there is too much detail or not enough. Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, a very thorough treatment of the topic, which is far beyond my meagre Latin skills to improve upon. There could be a couple of improvements though - the diagrams showing the vowel shift are rather space-consuming and ugly at the moment, perhaps a table might be a better way of conveting this information (sadly I lack the skills to make a decent table). This article could also go into a languages category, at the moment it is only linked to Ancient Rome, which is rather misleading. Lisiate 23:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Now that both my pints have been actioned my support is unqualified. Congratulations to all involved for an excellent article. Lisiate 21:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a very good article. Could you provide more on the final transition from Vulgar Latin into proto-Romance?  That seems to be the only thing lacking in an otherwise excellent general treatment. 68.148.211.161 03:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. This has a rather odd structure.  Basically, the info in the 'History' section and the 'What is Vulgar Latin' section should be merged.  The stuff in the History section just looks like an afterthought at the moment.  Morwen - Talk 17:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have merged the sections, and added a bit of information about Late Latin being a written norm. Smerdis of Tlön 18:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Reads much better know. One little thing - I understand Latin didn't use the definite article, but the daughter languages did.  Had this happened in vulgar latin?  Morwen - Talk 20:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've also added a section on the (rather obscure) invention of articles in Romance. Smerdis of Tlön 21:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the history section seems out of place. The whole article is about a historical language so the history section should either be expanded to be comprehensive or merged somewhere else into the article.  With that, I fully support.  Detailed and interesting. - Taxman 18:13, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Object - no lead section . --mav 10:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have expanded and given a brief summary in the opening paragraphs. Smerdis of Tlön 18:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is scholarly and well-written. -- Cabalamat 12:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I know absolutely nothing about Latin (and only a little about linguistics), but I was able to follow this excellent article. What would be helpful would be sound clips demonstrating such things as the vowel shifts; I have to admit that SAMPA is Greek to me. :) Denni &#9775; 20:16, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)