Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I'm not comfortable with initiating this GA review because I feel (though I am no expert on anything Indo-Germanic and did not verify the infos) that it meets GA requirements. However, there are two exceptions: The guidelines (2a) and (2b) are not met.
There is probably little controversial information in this article, but the violation of (2a) is pretty significant. I hope that someone familiar with this stuff might be ready to improve this, else this article must be demoted.
In the course of reading this article, I also came upon a few other points that, however, are not crucial to this GA review:
G Purevdorj ( talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as I don’t verify my claim about /pf/, my perception isn’t of any relevance. Being from Hannover, I perceive myself as saying /kamf/, not /kampf/, /ferd/ instead of /pfert/ etc. But I’ll try to check this during the next few days from my fellow speakers. Be this as it may, back to in-line citations and references:
The problem that any of these infos could be retrieved from almost any standard source is problematic for me as well, but as far as I understand the GA requirements, yes, the article would probably better confirm to GA requirements if at least every major paragraph had a reference. So I do think that referencing is an issue for this article from this more general and the more specific point of view mentioned first. G Purevdorj ( talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A bit of time has passed, but the source issues have not been addressed so far. Just as a reminder. G Purevdorj ( talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I'm not comfortable with initiating this GA review because I feel (though I am no expert on anything Indo-Germanic and did not verify the infos) that it meets GA requirements. However, there are two exceptions: The guidelines (2a) and (2b) are not met.
There is probably little controversial information in this article, but the violation of (2a) is pretty significant. I hope that someone familiar with this stuff might be ready to improve this, else this article must be demoted.
In the course of reading this article, I also came upon a few other points that, however, are not crucial to this GA review:
G Purevdorj ( talk) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as I don’t verify my claim about /pf/, my perception isn’t of any relevance. Being from Hannover, I perceive myself as saying /kamf/, not /kampf/, /ferd/ instead of /pfert/ etc. But I’ll try to check this during the next few days from my fellow speakers. Be this as it may, back to in-line citations and references:
The problem that any of these infos could be retrieved from almost any standard source is problematic for me as well, but as far as I understand the GA requirements, yes, the article would probably better confirm to GA requirements if at least every major paragraph had a reference. So I do think that referencing is an issue for this article from this more general and the more specific point of view mentioned first. G Purevdorj ( talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
A bit of time has passed, but the source issues have not been addressed so far. Just as a reminder. G Purevdorj ( talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)