Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vulgar Latin/archive1

Vulgar Latin

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Messages left at User talk:Ihcoyc, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages. Sandy 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

All in all a good article with good prose and comprehensiveness. However, it contains zero inline citations, with just two references. If someone could simply cite all the information from the listed (or other sources), then it would meet FA standards in my opinion. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 03:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe all the information is cited in the References section. Is it unreasonable to believe the article was written from 2 references? As for inline citations, the carefully worded WP:FA? tells us articles should be "complemented where appropriate by inline citations." It does not say that all information should have inline citations. However, if you can find a place where there should be an inline citation but there is none, please add a tag and let us know here so it can be corrected. See Citing sources for instances that require inline citations. Thanks for you help. -- Maintain 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article was indeed written from only two references, it has no business being a featured article. I frankly refuse to believe that everything we need to know about VL can be found in only two sources. I've already discussed some of the shortcomings of this article on the talk page: for example, there's no mention of the fact that Latin ĭ and ŭ merged with ē and ō respectively in most Romance languages (but not all). I would certainly expect a featured article on this topic to discuss the complete phonological history of Vulgar Latin, with examples, taken from a wide variety of sources. User:Angr 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Those two sources were, in fact, the chief sources I used when the article was first expanded from a stub. Generally speaking, Vincent supplied the description of the phonology, while Harrington et. al. supplied information about vocabulary, spelling, and syntax; writing the text I added consisted largely of collating information from the two sources combined, with vocabulary examples and literary quotes sometimes substituted from memory.  The merger of ǐ with ē is discussed in the article, at least in tabular form.  Agree that this should be expanded.


 * Palmer's The Latin Language probably ought also to be added as a reference; it supplies details about features in early Latin that disappear in classical Latin, but which reappear in Romance, suggesting that they had been present all along in basilectal Latin. A number of primary sources are quoted in the article, and attributed in text.


 * Since the article is in fact heavily indebted to these three sources, perhaps the best thing to do would be to turn the references from a table to a paragraph, explaining the information sourced in each of them.


 * Since I expanded the article, and a number of later editors made helpful changes, the coverage of Portuguese, Romanian, and Catalan has been expanded. Most of these edits are generally helpful and appear plausible, but I can't say what sources they should be attributed to.  A few, though, are obscuring or make the points more difficult to follow (the discussion of hongo vs. the learned borrowing fungo in Spanish is now obscured by a Portuguese me-too, for example).  I've been somewhat hesitant to edit these additions.  - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Needs inline citations (unsourced articles are generally assumed to be original research which is opposed in wikipedia). LuciferMorgan 22:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsourced?...well, no...please see Vulgar Latin (its been sourced since its FAC in 2004). Original research? That is quite the serious charge. What new theory or data is being presented here? Can an example of this "original research" be provided? Maintain 07:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many people complaining about the lack of references or even accusing an article of OR are doing it based solely on the number of footnotes and sources. Whatever happened to that Russian proverb that used to be in WP:V or WP:CITE or some similar policy or guideline? The one that said doveray nu proveray "trust, but verify". While I don't expect every editor and reader to look up every printed source, it would seem reasonable if those who criticized an article for being poorly referenced did this at least occasionally. I get the distinct feeling that one could get away with some serious FA bullshit with creative and intuitive choice of authoritive-looking sources and random sprinkling of footnotes. Peter Isotalo 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to carpet-bomb the contributors to this article to ask them to reference it properly. Perhaps old off FARCing for a few days? It's otherwise a very good piece. Tony 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We can wait. Marskell 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations (1c). Marskell 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There seems to be agreement the prose is good here, but it seems adding the refs has stalled a bit. I'm moving it down to keep the page moving. Marskell 07:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. Inadequate inline citations. The section "For further reading" is a mess: Something between a prose and a list.--Yannismarou 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think the complaint about inadequate inline citations is particularly well-merited. How well-referenced an article is can't accurately be judged solely on the number of footnotes. Which statements in the article do you consider inadequately referenced and why?
 * Peter Isotalo 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to comment. It is well-merited. For instance, why 4 paragraphs in section "What was Vulgar Latin?" have no inline citation? Read the current FA criteria, check the current FA and you'll understand that why should have at least I inline-citation for each of these paragraphs.--Yannismarou 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I donot think that just 5 references constitute the high level of research FA requires.--Yannismarou 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you're avoiding any specific criticism I'm assuming you haven't read or even leafed through a single one of those sources, except for maybe the URL. How can you know that they're not enough to cover the topic?
 * The article might very well be under-referenced, but this should be demonstrated by supplying constructive and reasonably precise criticism, not by assuming that the extreme footnote sprinkling of the FA being put out currently (with minor exceptions like actuary) have set the undisputable standard for all past and future nominees. The criteria have been the same for a long time now and there is not a word in them about either an absolute or relative number of notes or references needed. Like any requirement, it should not be taken to extremes.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Further response to comment: Do you want specific criticism? It was already specific, but let's make it a bit more specific:
 * "Vulgar Latin developed differently in the various provinces of the Roman Empire, thus gradually giving rise to modern French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan and Romansh. Although the official language, in all of these areas, was Latin, Vulgar Latin was what was popularly spoken until the new localized forms diverged sufficiently from Latin to emerge as separate standard languages." Who says that? Citation needed.
 * "The third century AD is presumed to be an age in which much vocabulary was changing (i.e., equus → caballus, etc.) and recently, some studies (which still perhaps need more scientific development) have suggested that pronunciations too started to diverge, supposedly even then becoming similar to modern local pronunciations, with the most spectacular (alleged) effect in the area of Naples." "Presumed" by whom? What "studies"? As it is now the text, we just have "unverifiable assessments". Citation needed.
 * "However it must be noted that most of this theory is based on reconstruction a posteriori rather than on texts." Really? According to whom? Citation needed.
 * "for when people who spoke one of the Romance vernaculars set out to write using proper grammar and spelling, what they put down was language that at least paid lip service to the norms of classical Latin." Who says that? Is there any study proving that? As it is now, we have non-verifiable assessments.
 * "Late Latin, still based in Rome, presumably reflected these acquisitions, recording what was changing in a nearer area — fairly identifiable with Italy." Presumably? Who presumes? You?! But original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. As it is now, it is either a non-verifiable assessment or, worse, original research. Citation needed.
 * "The Romance vernaculars were recognised as separate languages, and began to develop local norms and orthographies of their own. "Vulgar Latin" ceases to be a useful name for either language." Recognised by whom? Non-verifiable assessment. Citation needed.
 * "It could perhaps be described as a sort of "magmatic" undefined matter that slowly locally crystallized into the several early forms of each Romance language, that consequently find their ultimate proper ancestry in formal Latin." Described by whom? You?! Again original research or non-verifiable assessment. Citation needed.
 * Am I specific enough? And it is just the first section! When you address these specific criticisms, I'll continue with the next section. As you can see, I'm not taking it "to the extreme". I'm just implementing the current FA criteria and, as a matter of fact, in an indulgent way. Nominate now an article for FA and you'll understand what "to the extreme" means. Hence, I suggest that you start improving the article instead of criticizing those who point out its deficiencies.--Yannismarou 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that is better! Too many reviewers simply blurt accusations, like 'Inadequate inline citations', 'poor prose', or 'Under referenced'. This providing of examples turns accusations into criticisms which actually helps people make a better article (that is why we are here, right?). Though a simple fact per Citing sources would have sufficed. Maintain 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also done that now, emphasizing on the first section.--Yannismarou 11:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Original research is a serious charge, and it's one I stand by also in defence of the editor who replied to me at FAC. Opinions such as "another major" this etc. need to be cited or are otherwise considered original research - your opinion, or a reliable sources opinion (if so cite the source)?. Feel free to refute my comments, but I stand by them. On this basis, I vote remove because this hasn't been addressed. Yannismarou expressed my concerns in more detail earlier in this FARC on 14 September. LuciferMorgan 17:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is correct that this particular article still requires footnotes per Citing sources. However, lack of a footnote is not original research. It is not listed at No original research and it is not the spirit of the policy (No original research). Wikipedia-footnotes, like references, only mean that something is verifiable. A fallacy would be to assume that because there is no footnote that the info is not in the references, or that the author made it up. Likewise, because it is footnoted that it is true, or that it is not misquoted, or that it is not a hoax. Though I think we will agree that it is the burden of the editor to make verification as easy as possible (the method of choice seems to be footnotes) but it is the reviewers (if the wish to review the truthiness of the article) who must verify that the editor got it right. --Maintain 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, whatever we may think, the problem is that nobody adds the necessary citations and a nice article remains in danger.--Yannismarou 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Cite needed tags, no progress. Sandy 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate remove per a week with no work rule-of-thumb. Unfortunate, because I expected this one would be engaged given early commentary. It was not. The prose is good and per Maintain I don't think this is OR. But sentences like "it must be noted that most of this theory is based on reconstruction a posteriori rather than on texts" are begging for citation. Marskell 07:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)