Wikipedia:Peer review/Latin/archive1

Latin
I recently cleaned up most of the article, and I just wanted to get another editor's eye on it. Tell me also what you think is the best way to expand this article. I'd really like to make this a featured article, it seems like one of those topics that should be really easy to do because it's so broad. By the way, apparently there was already a Good articles review of this article before I got there, so take a look at that on the talk page. J. Finkelst e in 04:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Overall, I would say that the article focuses too heavily on the actual practice of using Latin, i.e. details of verb conjugation. It needs much more on the development of the language and its role in history and the present day. Take a look at Aramaic language for an article that I would say is better balanced for an encyclopedia article. Further, a short explanation of Latin pronunciation; this is more important that explaining grammar constructions.
 * Also, when you outline the noun declensions, you say that, e.g. "[it contains] mostly masculine words like 'wave' (fluctus, fluctūs masc.) and 'port' (portus, portūs masc.)" It should be made clear what makes these words "like" (other than the fact that they are in fourth declension) or it should be phrased as "It includes the masculine words 'wave' and 'port.'" Right now it implies a similarity that is not clear.
 * Also, if you want to get the article featured you'll need inline citations. On the whole though, great job, the article looks pretty solid. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Citations are needed for statements like "...almost no native ones..." in para 2 of the introduction. Where can one find a native Latin speaker today?  I'd like to read more about that.
 * Detailed discussion of declensions should be moved to the Latin declension article - it just clutters things here. It is sufficient to say that declensions exist and that they are broad classes of nouns with similar inflectional patterns.  If the reader wants details, he'll go to the main article.
 * The complete parsing of laudo should be moved to the Latin conjugation article. Again, it breaks up the flow of the main article -- if the reader wants the details, he'll seek them out.
 * I think the debate over the naming of this article should be revived. Latin has just as many meanings in English as Greek, and it is not clear that the Latin language is the primary definition.  This article belongs at Latin language just like every other language article on Wikipedia; Latin should be a disambiguation page, just like Greek. --Jpbrenna 17:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

- all I can find is one non-functioning footnote.


 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006  should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006,  should be come February 28, 2006. 


 * This article is a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).


 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.


 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.


 * Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)