Wikipedia:Featured article review/Speech synthesis/archive1

Review commentary

 * Message left at Nohat. Sandy 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article no longer meets the Featured Article Criteria. Specificially, I am unconvinced of its factual accuracy due to lack of reliable sources. Don't get me wrong -- it's still a good article, and not far from feature-quality, but it's just not quite up there. Powers T 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's actually a very long way from meeting current FA standards. Here are just a few of the things to be addressed:


 * Lead is inadequate
 * There are only TWO citations for the entire article
 * The external links section is way too large, and reads like an advertisement list
 * The entire article needs a heavy copy-edit, and there is even a tag to point this out
 * Much information is lacking: for example, the real-world uses of speech synthesis; and the fact that current English-language synthesis always sounds like an American accent. There is MUCH more than this in the way of missing information.

All this needs to be addressed by one of the article's major contributors, or by someone else who knows about the subject. EuroSong talk 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. A mess: I don't know what WikiProjects to notify. Sandy 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just carpet-bombed the about ten contributors on the history of edits page with the following message:

Hi there,

You're listed in the edit history of this article. I wonder whether you're able to help bring it up to FA standard again? Please see WP:FAR.

Tony 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with most of the comments about the poor state of the article. I might be able to contribute a little from the technical side, but I don't know if I have the time or the stomach for a complete rewrite. It also appears to be the case that the External links section is being abused as an advertising service.
 * --Ziusudra 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2), lack of citations (1c), copy-edit issues (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 13:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Major editing since nomination, but I find it hard to determine whether it's comprehensive—now it's kind of short for what is surely a major subject. For example, there's nothing on applications. Can we have some more input from the contributors, both WRT to the article's text and here? Tony 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I edited it quite thoroughly, but I agree that it is probably not comprehensive, and it's still not sourced. (At least it is, IMO, no longer 'ugly'!) Reluctant delist. – Outriggr § 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I carpet-bombed quite a few contributors from the edit history yesterday. Let's hope for some activity. Tony 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. Undercitated. If the adequate references are added, I'll reconsider my vote.--Yannismarou 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we hold on this one for maybe two days? I think this can be done up with largely net sources. If I'm not doing anything, I'll say so. Marskell 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing much done since my last comment. My feeling is that this should be retained as an FA (only just), but more citations are needed, I think. for example:
 * When I see the wording "The two characteristics used to describe the quality of a speech synthesis system are naturalness and intelligibility.", I start to want a reference ("used to describe"). Otherwise, remove this sense and make it a generalised, common-knowledge statement. Just a smattering of references would do the trick, so that readers can grasp the verifiability of the text. Tony

And:
 * What is "tari ghaaan" doing floating at the bottom of one section?
 * There's n awful lot of "often"s—in places, one in each sentence. I've changed a few to "typically", and "commonly", "usually" or nothing are options too. Can someone audit for this overuse?

Uh-oh: I believe the Concatenative Synthesis section may be a text dump from here. It's a .edu site and I doubt they are copying us. Marskell 14:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case, I'd go for a removal. Tony 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The original author of the article, is still active: it would be helpful if s/he weighed in. Sandy (Talk) 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go remove in light of above. S/he's been contacted once--with a potential copyvio I don't think we should wait longer. Marskell 13:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove possible copyvio in addition to other issues. Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)