The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs, uncited notes, and inline parenthetical referencing. Z1720 ( talk) 22:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Some statement (Smith 1989)
. There was only one such instance that I could spot in the article. What you give examples of are mentions of the sources within the article text. These are used in the overview of the literature and, elsewhere in the article, for the occasional
in-text attribution. Should these be removed? Or the mentions unlinked from the bibliography so they look less like refs? I don't believe either of these would be an improvement. –
Uanfala (talk)
23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
On a more substantial level, I notice that the article's content was largely complete by 2008 (with subsequent changes mostly confined to style and presentation). The most recent sources in the bibliography are Stifter 2006 and Carnie 2002. Now, I don't think Irish phonology is a particularly trendy field, but some relevant research will certainly have been done in the last decade and a half. I can see for example Hickey's 2014 The Sound Structure of Modern Irish doi: 10.1515/9783110226607, or McCullough's 2020 Escaping siloed phonology: Framing Irish lenition in Emergent Grammar hdl: 10150/641487, or the 2017 From phonology to syntax — and back again: Hierarchical structure in Irish and Blackfoot hdl: 11023/4161, or.... Of course, not all of this will be relevant, but still, some new developments will have taken place, new analyses brought forward, or new descriptive data presented. A wikiedia article can't be at the cutting edge, but it will still ideally keep abreast with what's going on in the field. 15 years probably isn't a lot here, but at some point in the future this will need to start getting up to date to meet the expectations of a featured article. When is that point? – Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs, uncited notes, and inline parenthetical referencing. Z1720 ( talk) 22:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Some statement (Smith 1989)
. There was only one such instance that I could spot in the article. What you give examples of are mentions of the sources within the article text. These are used in the overview of the literature and, elsewhere in the article, for the occasional
in-text attribution. Should these be removed? Or the mentions unlinked from the bibliography so they look less like refs? I don't believe either of these would be an improvement. –
Uanfala (talk)
23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
On a more substantial level, I notice that the article's content was largely complete by 2008 (with subsequent changes mostly confined to style and presentation). The most recent sources in the bibliography are Stifter 2006 and Carnie 2002. Now, I don't think Irish phonology is a particularly trendy field, but some relevant research will certainly have been done in the last decade and a half. I can see for example Hickey's 2014 The Sound Structure of Modern Irish doi: 10.1515/9783110226607, or McCullough's 2020 Escaping siloed phonology: Framing Irish lenition in Emergent Grammar hdl: 10150/641487, or the 2017 From phonology to syntax — and back again: Hierarchical structure in Irish and Blackfoot hdl: 11023/4161, or.... Of course, not all of this will be relevant, but still, some new developments will have taken place, new analyses brought forward, or new descriptive data presented. A wikiedia article can't be at the cutting edge, but it will still ideally keep abreast with what's going on in the field. 15 years probably isn't a lot here, but at some point in the future this will need to start getting up to date to meet the expectations of a featured article. When is that point? – Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC) reply