Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swedish language/archive2


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

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC).

Swedish language

 * Notified: Peter Isotalo, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Sweden

Review section
The article was promoted in 2005 and hasn't been properly reviewed since then. (The 2007 review was aborted.) It's been tagged for citation for over 3 years and there was very little response to the verifiability concern raised on the talk page then. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There aren't many tags, actually. I'll see about some refs for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a dozen refs, and removed a few bits of uncited text, so it's now tag-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea how the whole FA stuff works, but I would expect from an article about a major language a little bit more content about the syntax. This article very briefly touches upon some aspects, but given the enormous amount of literature on the topic, I think this is far from adequate. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article covers grammar (including syntax), and is linked to a subsidiary article on Swedish grammar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My point was that the coverage of syntax in either of the two articles is rudimentary at best. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to bring the article up to snuff, so I'll try my best to address any concerns.
 * I would like to aim for a reasonable level of detail. Can you provide some bullet points on some of the most essential facts that you believe should be added to the article text?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there don't appear to be any decent Swedish grammars easily accessible in my library, so I'll have to go by my first impressions from reading the section in the article – some of the following may not be relevant. For example, there is a mention of reflexive pronouns with a hint that they might be unusual. But why are they unusual? How different are they from neighbouring languages or from English? Given how important anaphora is in Chomskyan syntax, there's bound to have been research out there that has uncovered interesting aspects of the way the reflexives work in Swedish. There are two sentences about word order, but this almost certainly glosses over a more complex picture. At the very least, some examples would have been needed at least to show how SVO differs from V2 order. How are questions formed? How are relative clauses constructed? How does the grammar of the spoken language differ from the written standard?
 * These are all things I would expect to see in a top-quality article about a language. But I won't go far as predicating the FA status on them. If anyone is interested in syntax and they are willing to expand the article tha would be great. But it's better not to have any content than have content contributed by someone without a background in syntax solely for the sake of passing FA review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications. I've started working on this, but I feel a bit rusty, so the going might be a bit slow. I'll be sandboxing the content here User:Peter Isotalo/Swedish rather than trying to screw up the article with too many minor edits.
 * Do you have any examples of other language FAs that you believe contain good descriptions of unique, unusual or fairly specific traits? It might prove very useful inspiration.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No progress on my end. I was overly optimistic in my hopes to get back to editing. I'll have to pass on this review. Sorry for the inconvenience.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest writing a full grammar section based on the chapter on Swedish by Erik Andersson in Auwera and König's "The Germanic Languages" - that is a very useful little grammar sketch that has all the main elements for a sketch of the language. I would do it similar to what I have done in the articles on English and Danish - which have sections that also cover basic syntax.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * also I would suggest cleaning up the references to have a harvard bibliography, with citations using harvrefs and then a separate note section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have this as pdf and can send it. Ahlgren, J., Holmes, P., & Serin, G. (2006). Colloquial Swedish: the complete course for beginners. Routledge. And I have ordered Holmes' two grammars from the library.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. 16:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delist. I'm sorry, I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this, but I just fact-checked three sentences in the Geographical distribution section (because I had access to the three sources for those sentences) and none of the sentences appeared to be supported by the sources. A score of 0 out of 3 doesn't give me confidence in the rest of the article. DrKay (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm agree with you. --QuQuqquu99 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: failing verification is pretty serious, and there has been little activity for 2 months so am closing this as delist.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.