Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian orthography/archive1

Hungarian orthography
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it into a featured article.

Thanks a lot, Adam78 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This article is obviously the product of a great deal of dedicated work. However, there are basic issues of subject, length, presentation and referencing to be addressed.
 * Subject: From the first paragraph of your lead it seems you are making an extended interpretation of "orthography". I am not a languages expert, but: "it includes the spelling of lexical words, proper nouns, and foreign words (loanwords) in themselves, with suffixes, and in compounds, as well as the hyphenation of words, punctuation, abbreviations, collation (alphabetical ordering), and other information (such as how to write dates)" - seems to go beyond the bounds of orthography, at least as I understand the word.
 * Size/readability: the wordcount is around 10,500, not including the small print insertions or the bullet-pointed text. When these are added we have around 14,500 words, way above the recommended length for a Wikipedia article except in very special circumstances. Why does the article have to be so long? I know that most subjects can be expanded to almost any length, but there is already a long article Hungarian language. I would have thought that adoption of a summary style could have shortened the orthography article, which is basically about one aspect of language, to a fraction of its present length, and help the readability of what is a highly specialist article. An alternative to reducing the text might be subdividing the article - although perhaps this is already a split from the language article.
 * Presentation
 * The device of interspersing the text with a small-print "problem" commentary is certainly novel, but is not within the style guidelines for Wikipedia articles. All text within the article should be in standard format.
 * A substantial part of the article, paticular in the later parts, is written in bullet points. This format should be used in articles very sparingly; most of this will need to be converted into straight prose.
 * There are too many short, often single-sentence paragraphs.
 * The lead does not conform to the requirements set out in WP:LEAD. The lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, not a brief introduction to the subject. General text should not be italicized.
 * References:
 * None of the online references are properly formatted. For each, the minimum requirement is title, publisher and last access date.
 * Wikipedis itself cannot be a source for Wikipedia articles (see [23])
 * Apart from [241] there are no English sources. Is there no English scholarship relevant to the subject?

I am sorry if this all sounds rather critical but I believe that attention to these points, especially to that of excessive length, will lead to a better article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)