Levantine Arabic

Levantine Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Levantine Arabic/archive1

Nominator(s): A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Levantine Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in the Levant. (PR1, Sept 2021 / GA1, Dec 2021 / DYK, Dec 2021 / PR2, March 2022) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are the only 2 FA about a spoken language: Nafaanra and Nahuatl. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

• File:Modern Levant.PNG — file description states the accuracy is disputed
• File:Arabic Dialects.svg — The image description should include sources for the info displayed on the map
• File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg — I don't think this meets the non-free copyright criteria for use in this article, especially #1 and #8.
• Other images look fine. I don't see any sound files in the article, but if there are any they have not been evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern Levant.PNG: I don't see any dispute so removed that information in the file description. Otherwise we could use File:The Levant 3.png (sourced) or File:Levant (orthographic projection).png

File:Arabic Dialects.svg: I don't think we can find sources for such a map, I removed it.

File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg: I don't know enough about non-free copyright criteria, let me know if I have to remove it A455bcd9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For 3, I went ahead and removed it. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of duplicate links. You can detect them using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed most of them. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: for "Arabic Dialects.svg", I've just realized that the image was present in Schmitt, Genevieve A. (2019). "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion". In Brunn, Stanley D.; Kehrein, Roland (eds.). Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer. p. 1385. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79. ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6. as "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)". Could this be used as a source, a posteriori? (or at least a validation by a scholar that the information in the image is reliable) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. There is considerable citation cleanup needed: many citations are incomplete and the formatting is inconsistent. There are also some issues with article structure, with a very long TOC, short and choppy subsections, and a significant number of one-sentence paragraphs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please provide examples of incomplete citations? I checked during the last peer review and I thought it was okay. Same question regarding formatting. I'm a bit surprised because I only used the automatic citation tool in VisualEditor, and as it auto-formats, I guessed the resulting formatting would be consistent. Chris Capoccia also reformatted refs and used citation bot cleanup. Regarding the other points: I'll improve that later. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately automated tools don't necessarily ensure consistency. Some samples of issues (not a full list):

• Some references use the {{citation}} template, while others use cite templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc) - this will produce output that looks different. Also some references use no template at all, eg 278
• Many books are missing publisher - eg footnotes 3, 8, 102, 126, and others
• Some books include publication location (eg 27) while others do not (eg 123). This is an optional parameter, so you should decide to include or not include and then do that consistently.
• When someone translates a work, they should be credited using a translator parameter rather than an author parameter in the citation template
• Citations should generally include at least one of work or publisher - eg 155 has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting translators is optional, I believe, but if you are doing it, I would advise to use the translator parameter as Nikkimaria suggests. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced {{citation}} templates, added publishers where missing in {{cite book}}, removed all "publication-place" and "location", added translators, added website for 155, and a template for 278 (I think it was the only ref without a template). Do you think citations are okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is now way shorter (from ~60 sections and first-level subsections to ~40) and I removed many one-sentence paragraphs and "short and choppy subsections". I think the "Grammar" section is the only one where there may still be some work to do. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely work needed in Grammar, but not only that. For example, presently the Vocabulary section is only six paragraphs, and yet it has two subsections. With regards to citations, thank you for addressing the specific examples raised, but as noted that wasn't a comprehensive list of issues. For example, footnotes 147 and 148 are both journal references but look quite different; 267 includes "www" in the domain but 265 does not; 123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect. Some of these are simply a matter of consistency. But both cases need working through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed these issues. I understand that your list wasn't comprehensive, so I tried to address other issues I identified. Besides the Grammar section, is there still some work needed? If so, can I find a comprehensive checklist somewhere with the different criteria (such as "www" in the domain, credit platform with via, etc.) so that I don't bother you? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not aware of a comprehensive checklist. WP:CITEHOW and the documentation for the templates will give you some of the information, but a lot of the time it's a matter of manually comparing citations to see where they differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I used the Wikipedia citation bot, not really helpful... I looked at WP:CITEHOW and improved several citations. Is it okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still problems unfortunately. More examples: footnote 165 is a harv error; some book references include locations while others don't; some journals include publishers while others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh sorry... "some book references include locations while others don't": which book references? There was one that I forgot (Cambridge, just removed) but otherwise the only 6 "location=" used are for conferences (Miyazaki, Istanbul, Doha, Brasov) as it seems to be expected by Template:Cite conference. I added the three missing publishers for journals. I think/hope we should be good now... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you wrote: "123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect." And I initially changed from "publisher=" to "via=" for this reference. However I double-checked and the document says: "Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author." So should I change back to "publisher=ProQuest"? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - ProQuest is publishing a reproduction, but the thesis itself is originally published by the university. |via= is the more appropriate position for ProQuest in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, I worked on the citations, could you please tell me if they're okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely much better than when we started, but there are still inconsistencies. For example, some references to Ethnologue use regular {{cite web}} templates while others use a specialty template with different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Let me know if citations are okay now. I also worked on the TOC and one-sentence paragraphs. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To stay on the topic of sourcing, one inconsistency I'm seeing is that sometimes sources are cited with a specific page and sometimes not, e.g. ref 41, 107, 126. I am aware that it would be a huge job to fix that, but alas consistency is part of the FACR. Also is there any "systematic" reason why some sources are cited in "Sources" and referenced through {{sfn}} templates while others are cited directly in the "references"? JBchrch talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @JBchrch:,

  I checked all sources and added missing page numbers. I think the only sources cited without pages now are:

  • Online news articles (for which there's no page, e.g. this one or that one),
  • Articles from the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics that are available online (e.g. here) without pagination,
  • "An illusionary power of seduction?" which is also an online journal, so there's no pages.

  Is it okay now? (I think so)

  Sources in "Sources" using sfn: long books cited several times at different pages in the article, and also the main references about Levantine Arabic in general. Sources directly in "References": shorter articles (often only cited once and about a specific point). Does this make sense? What are the conventions here? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A455bcd9 Thanks -- are you sure you've checked all of them? I still see that ref 104, 108 and 246, for instance, are quoted "in bulk". As for the "Sources"/"References" thing, there is no standard practice, since Wikipedia doesn't mandate a specific citation style, it just has to be consistent. One additional comment as I looked at the article once more: I see that sometimes you list the day-month-year of publication as its publication date, and sometimes only the year (e.g. Brustad & Zuniga 2019, Al Masri 2015). I think listing the year is sufficient, and it will also make it consistent. JBchrch talk 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBchrch: I thought the only issue was consistency in terms of appearance (some references with p= or pp=, others without => now they all have this parameter, with a few exceptions I explained). But now I understand that it's not only about visual appearance but also about how accurate each page mention is and you would like each reference to specifically mention the exact page(s) related to the sentence they're attached to. So if it's a 10-page article and the information needed appears on page 5 then you want p=5 instead of pp=1-10. Am I correct? From WP:PAGENUM, I understood that specific page numbers were only required when citing "lengthy" sources. Should I still do it?

  Date format: I've just converted all dates to year in the "Sources" section. But do you think I should do that in "References" as well? Including for news articles? And for journals (for which the format is most likely Month Date)? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A455bcd9 Your understanding of my suggestion is correct. Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the page numbers were cited every time. Also, pay attention to the fact that sometimes there are lengthy works that are cited without a specific page number, such as ref 41. About dates: the "classical" way of doing things is to keep day+month+year for news articles, but to mention only the year for scholarly articles (unless adding the month [and the day] is the only way to individualize the article in question). JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBchrch: OK so I changed all dates to "year only" for scholarly articles (cite book, cite journal, and cite conference) and kept day+month+year for cite news and cite web (when available).

  For the page numbers, just to be clear (before starting what may be a huge task haha), do you mean Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning [specific] page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the [specific] page numbers were cited every time.? I so, then I'll make page numbers more specific tomorrow or this weekend 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've started adding more specific page numbers (almost done...), so never mind my question :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A455bcd9 Apologies for the late answer. And yes, just in case, yes that was what I meant :). Good luck this work! JBchrch talk 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBchrch no worries! I've actually just finished. I hope it's okay now :) Please let me know if there are still some issues... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A455bcd9 It looks like things have improved indeed, but I will take a closer look later. Something you could double-check is whether all the book titles are correctly capitalized. For instance, ref 125 and 129 should have more capitals per their "official" titles [1][2]. JBchrch talk 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBchrch: it's a never ending task haha! Thanks, I fixed those and all the others I identified. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A455bcd9 Yes it is 😊. The way I like to think about it is that the article has to be "ready for the printing press" which supposes that Wiki editors have to do the work typically done by publishers, editors and copyrights "in real life". JBchrch talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBchrch: I have so much respect for all the contributors who improved articles to FA status now... Anyway I think the article is "ready for the printing press" (when it comes to citations at least). But you'll maybe tell me there's yet another point to improve 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JBchrch Were you able to take a closer look at the citations? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next two or three days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to understand: how does the process work? Because my natural reaction if you archive this nomination, would be to nominate it again right after as there's only one "Oppose" based on grounds that I consider (maybe wrongly) fixed. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the nomination is archived, you're not able to renominate for at least two weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]