Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nahuatl/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Mexico, talk page notification 2024-08-04
Review section
[edit]User:Z1720 originally noticed this article for WP:URFA/2020 and brought up a number of concerns at the talk page, in August of last year, and many are still unresolved. I'll list them:
- lead - WP:LEADLENGTH no longer recommends leads be 4 paragraphs or less, but at ~500 words the lead could still use some trimming.
- uncited text - the "numerals" section is no longer uncited. There are a few paragraphs in the history section, at the end of the "Pre-Columbian" section and near the end of "Colonial", where I'm not sure everything is supported by the citations given. Additionally, there are some uncited glosses in the "Morphology and syntax" section - I haven't checked, I'm presuming they come from the sources cited in the prose near them. However, there is a footnote saying that, unless otherwise noted, the glosses come from one section of Suarez 1983, and not all these uncited glosses are really from Suarez 1983.
- Comprehensive A number of sections needing updating or more work.
- "Demography and distribution" and "20th and 21st centuries" - need to be updated to reflect more recent censuses, scholarship since the early 2000s, developments since the Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas and establishment of INALI, drug war violence affecting some Nahuatl-speaking communities.
- "Writing" - doesn't provide a good summary of orthographies developed and used after the colonial period and the ideological/motivational issues and debates involved. Also, the big "Classical Nahuatl orthographies" table isn't really representative of things, only including IPA, APA, colonial and Launey's orthography - in contrast, Pharao Hansen's Nahuatl Nations provides a nice table showing how different consonants are represented in a variety of orthographies.
- "Vocabulary" - right now it's just about Nahuatl words which have been borrowed into Spanish and English and place-names.
- "Contact phenomena" - almost at a glance, doesn't seem to address or summarize the major facts & details
- "Phonology" - maybe more on the saltillo - the consonant table right now has both ʔ and h, with h in parentheses and a little note on the saltillo, citing an article in French from 1980. Table should make it clearer they're allophones in different dialects, with maybe a bit more explanation.
- "Morphology and syntax" - I'm not sure this would be good enough for an FA by today's standards - some content maybe could be added, maybe not all subsections really represent the literature in the best way, and while looking for glosses in Suarez 83 I found some grammar points which just weren't addressed here
- consistent citations - Most shortrefs don't include parentheses around years, some do.
I can't really address well-written or possible style/MOS issues. Some of these issues should be fairly simple to resolve, but others would require more effort. Erinius (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: I restructured the "terminology" section, but I think that and the enclosing "Classification" section could use some looking over, and I'm not really sure how to improve it structure and writing-wise. Also, the way that section presents the term mēxihcacopa could be problematic - Hill & Hill 86 say it's a neologism.
- And I've been working on the article as of late, I'll continue to do so, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get everything done within any given time period. Erinius (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No one else has shown interest, so move to FARC (though we can definitely tap the brakes if you're hoping to save this yourself, Erinius). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been intent on working on this myself, but I was fairly busy otherwise during much of February and early March and that got in the way. Erinius (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Erinius: - Do you still intend to be able to finish this? Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been intent on working on this myself, but I was fairly busy otherwise during much of February and early March and that got in the way. Erinius (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC per EW. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Some of my concerns have been resolved, but recent scholarship and census data has not been added to the article yet. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, I guess. Reading through the previous part of this discussion suggests that there's a fair bit of work needed here; it's been about three months since the last work here and no word from Erinius. Hog Farm Talk 18:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.