Talk:Mayan languages/Comments: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:39, 1 March 2007

Overall

(a) Article is outrageously underreferenced. I'm only giving examples from the "history" section
(b) A number of overly short sections (detailed below in the order they appear) are overloading the table of content. One-paragraph sections and one-sentence paragraphs are unacceptable violations of criterion 1(a) and 2
- 1(a) just says "compelling prose", nothing about headers. 2 says "complies with manual of style" - also very general. The manual of style itself has little to say on the size of sectons. 2(b) says "proper hierarchical headings" - clearly not violated. 2(c) says "substantial, but not overwhelming, table of contents".

I have removed all the 3rd-level headings from the Grammar section. "Syntax" is still just one paragraph. Does that resolve this issue? --Homunq 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(c) Many headers are violating the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) by starting with "The".

Resolved.

(d) Headers should be in sentence case, not title case.

resolved

(e) Not to mention the unnecessary repetition of the article title: "Overview of Mayan languages and Linguistic groups", "Phonology of the Mayan family": What other family could we be discussing?

Resolved.

(f) Overlinking across the board

Substantially addressed.

(g) Poor and ambiguous writing dominates the article. I cannot even begin to list them all. Just look at the "history" section and you'll get an idea.

Has been addressed.

(h) Overuse of needless bolding in the "overview" part.

The language names are bolded. This is a consistent convention and helpful visually. Besides, "Overuse" and "needless" are redundant :). (That's a joke, no offense.) --Homunq 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

(a) Mayance languages ????
- Removed.
(b) Are they indeed only spoken by indigenous Mayas?
- Not claimed.
(c) "The Mayan linguistic family is one of the best documented and most studied in the Americas"
- Source?
  - Added.
(d) "Mayan languages were written in the Maya hieroglyphic script"
- This is misleading: according to Maya script, only Cholan and yukatek were written.
  - Fixed.
(e) It's not balanced: Nearly a third discusses the writing system, which is a pretty marginal part of the article itself.
- Ameliorated.--Homunq 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

(a) "[...] or in Maya Nab'ee Maya' Tzij"
- Which "Maya"? The article is pretty clear that there is no such thing as a specific "Maya language"...
  - Resolved.
(b) "Speakes[sic] of the western branch[...]"
- Ahem...
  - Resolved.
(c) "Qanjobalan was the only branch to stay behind."
- Poor choice of wording and tone
  - Resolved.
(d) "When the Tzeltalan branch of the Cholan languages later moved into the Chiapas highlands they came into contact with speakers of Mixe-Zoquean languages."
- there should be a comma after "highlands"
  - Resolved.
(e) "In the Archaic period, [...]"
- The link is not enough to clear up this bit of jargon. Add a date range.
  - Resolved.
- The rest of this sentence is also poorly written.
  - Changed.
- Two links to Mixe-Zoquean languages in as many sentences
  - Resolved.
(f) "Early contact is also documented between Mayan and the Xinca and Lenca languages, but in these cases the transfer is from Mayan to Xinca and Lenca. Few or no early loanwords from these languages have entered Mayan: this in turn suggests a period of Mayan dominance over Lencan and Xincan speakers, possibly during the Classic period."
- This? This alone would be enough to fail this article for criterion 1 (a)
  - Can't say I see the problem. --Homunq 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be sourced, too.
  - Resolved.
- "Classic" should not be linked, and also have a date.
  - Resolved.
(g) "had already occurred by the Classic period,"
- Another, typical example of overlinking that is usually typical of new, unedited articles.
  - Resolved.
(h) Second paragraph of the section has no references whatsoever.
(i) "During the classic period all the major branches of the family were consolidated."
- "Consolidated"? you mean they merged into a single language?
  - Resolved.
(j) "This language is thought to have originated in western and south-central Petén"
- Is this still the Petén basin that was just mentioned? Or is it Petén?
  - There was no department at the time, obviously. The two are pretty contiguous anyway.
- Again, sources for this whole sentence is needed
  - Resolved.
(k) "This suggests that Classic Maya traders had spread their influence beyond Mesoamerica to the Caribbean region."
- Sourcing in alley 3!
  - Removed for now, discussion of sourcing ongoing on talk page.
(l) "Mayan along with most other indigenous languages came under the"
- Can you find the missing commas?
  - Resolved.
(m) "However since the Maya area was more resistant to outside influence than others, the influences of Spanish upon Mayan languages have not been as substantial as has been the case, for example, in Nahuatl."
- Why is only the first part of this statement sourced?
(n) Same for the rest of the paragraph: Where's the source?
(o) I've lost the count of unnecessary links to Spanish by this point.
- - Resolved.
(p) The last 2 paragraphs? No citations. Where were you when we wrote Wikipedia:Attribution?
- - This is a serious issue and still unresolved.
(q) "Paradoxically, this pride in unity has led to a move away from the word "dialect" for describing Mayan languages, as this word was sometimes historically used to make a racist distinction between Amerindian and European languages."
- Why doesn't this mention the usual bit about dialects/language having specific linguistic definitions?
  - Resolved.
(r) "For the modern languages, the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages (Spanish acronym ALMG), with representation from the 21 language groups in Guatemala, is gaining a growing recognition as the authority in such matters as standardized orthography."
- Oh my god! this sentence is so wordy as to verge on the nonsensical.
  - Changed.
(s) "This autonomous institution"
- Autonomous from what?
  - Removed.

Internal subdivision

(a) Should be "subdivisions"
- - Resolved.
(b) This section is... One paragraph and one image. No, actually, it's one image and comment on the content of the image. An image whose content is not available via text, too. (an issue that lead me to force Timeline of Apple Macintosh models to include text: it was originally nothing more than a timeline image, see the peer review)
- - Well, I disagree. If necessary, this could be linked to a subpage which consisted only of the equivalent table in text, using the {{Subclade}} template, as visible on the talk page. That would mean going over the subclade template for accessibility. But I feel that this "picture is worth a thousand words". --Homunq 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(c) There is nothing about the history of Mayan languages scholarship. Compare with the detailed historic debates detailed in FA Triceratops and current FAC Iguanodon.
- - Does every scientific topic need a history of the scholarship? There have been many fascinating debates through history which are best left uncovered in the main articles. Even more boring ones.

Overview of Mayan languages and Linguistic groups

(a) This section is way overdivided and overdetailed. Also, the subheader structure should be text in the "Internal subdivision" section.
- - Disagree. --Homunq 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Have I mentioned the ridiculously long and redundantly redundant section title yet?
- - Resolved.
(c) "sign languages" are not "mayan languages". While they probably deserve some mention, their treatment (too detailed!) and their placement in the structure is completely inappropriate. Also, the entire section lacks references: "One writer has suggested [...]"? I thought we wanted to avoid weasel words!
- - Resolved.

Phonology of the Mayan family

(a) The Department of Redundancy Department for redundant headers strikes again.
- - Resolved.
(b) Statements, statements,and not a sources to check.
- - Resolved.
(c) "The modern Mayan languages have evolved from a common ancestor that has been reconstructed (Campbell and Kaufman 1985) using the comparative method."
- Wordy McWord! I'll take a serving of conciseness please.
  - Resolved.
(d) 3 paragraphs, none of which contains mroe than one sentence...
- - Resolved.
(e) The section completely fails to give a sense of the uniting phonological features of mayan languages and focuses too much on the phonological history.
- - Resolved?

Grammatical overview

(a) Contains no actual "overview"
(b) I count 6 one-paragraph sections. One of these has two sentences
(c) Despite being half of the meaningful part of the ToC, it contains 6 out of 51 citations.

Writing system

(a) The first subsection should have a {{main}}
(b) The transcription has poor legibility. Using phonetic tables would be far more useful.

Literature

(a) There is no reason to have an embedded list there. It breaks the flow.

References

(a) Where did these small caps cam from? Consistency is good, and almost no wikipedia articles (much less featured ones that I know of) use small caps for their references.
- It is extremely common both in print and on the web for bibliographical listings to use some sort of visual cue which makes it easier to pick out the keyword (ie authors' names) from the alphasorted list of references. Frequently it's by outdenting them; capitalising or bolding them are other methods often used. While optional, the use of smallcaps here is a simple method intended to do just that. Even if this method is not widely encountered in wikipedia, I don't think that invalidates it. We already allow for several referencing styles to appear in wikipedia, no particular one is mandated. So long as the refs presentation is consistent within the article itself then I don't see this to be a problem.--cjllw | TALK 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 ==Phonology of the Mayan family==
 *'''(a)''' The Department of Redundancy Department for redundant headers strikes again.
+***''Resolved.''
 *'''(b)''' Statements, statements,and not a sources to check.
+***''Resolved.''
 *'''(c)''' "The modern Mayan languages have evolved from a common ancestor that has been reconstructed (Campbell and Kaufman 1985) using the comparative method."
 **Wordy McWord! I'll take a [[WP:TRITE|serving of conciseness]] please.
+***''Resolved.''
 *'''(d)''' 3 paragraphs, none of which contains mroe than one sentence...
+***''Resolved.''
 *'''(e)''' The section completely fails to give a sense of the uniting phonological features of mayan languages and focuses too much on the phonological history.
+***''Resolved?''
 ==Grammatical overview==
 *'''(a)''' Contains no actual "overview"