Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rongorongo/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:01, 22 January 2008.

---

Rongorongo

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has recently been cleaned up, completely rewritten, and is well referenced. kwami (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose But does it meet featured article criteria? At a glance, the lead should be expanded (2a), the article is divided into too many subsections (2b), references are inconsistently formatted (2c), specific statements and quotations are uncited (1c), and the tone seems to be non-neutral in places when discussing scholarly work ("Salmon's translations are unreliable. Apart from Atua-Mata-Riri, which is discussed below, they do not match the dictation. Little does it matter, for Ure Vaeiko's readings, seemingly reliable although difficult to interpret at first, become clearly ridiculous towards the end.") (1d). BuddingJournalist 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can justify the "non-neutral" comments, but maybe I just got carried away because it's much much better than it was. Anyway, if it fails fac, could someone at least look at reassessing it? kwami (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it, it's a nice quick read, I doubt it fullfills the FA criteria, but it's nice - very good pictures. - "the word" heading would be better as "etymology"--Kiyarrllston 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better as a Good Article candidate? Do articles typically go through there before being nominated for FA status? kwami (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look at this page (Featured Article Criteria) - if you do not believe that this article fulfills those criteria, to withdraw this nomination.

I do not believe that the article has to be a candidate for anything. FA, GA, or any other status. Articles are not usually GA before FA, the two are very separate processes.

If you wish to improve the article I strongly encourage you to contact more experienced editors, preferably that have an interest in the article and previously contributed to it. Peer Review does not put the article as a candidate for any status, only for a review as to how it can be improved.

Feel free to direct any questions to my user talk page. Thank you for reading this comment.

--Kiyarrllston 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: IMO, the article is far from a FA. Some things need to done a GAC:

1. Most refs do not have page nos.
2. ref 19 is " pp. 173-199 ", find which book.
3. ref 43 "The modern names of the months are not derived from the ancient names, but are borrowed from modern Tahitian, which in turn borrowed them all from English. The month names in this manuscript are further variously misspelt and appear as te nu ari (January), apapu ari (February), aaperirá (April), mé (May), tiúnu (June), tiu rai (July), a tete (August), tete pa (September), oto pa (October), noe ma (November), tete ma (December). [There is no j, s, or g/k in Tahitian, nor f in Rapa Nui, so these sounds are replaced by t and p respectively.] " is anote, needs a ref.
4. Too many quotes. Incorporate quotes in text. See WP:QUOTE.
5. All instances of opinions of Fisher or Guy need a ref like "Fischer interprets glyph 76 as a phallus", "Guy (1990) demonstrates more precisely that it was likely an astronomical rule for when one or two intercalary nights should be inserted into the 28-night Rapanui month to keep in sync with the phases of the moon. This is the only example of rongorongo that is currently accepted as having been deciphered, though it cannot be actually read.", "In 1971 Barthel claimed to have parsed the inventory of glyphs to 120,"

I think the article can be a GA, once the above things are done. To editors of Rongorongo, I must say that the article is nicely illustrated and presented by tables. Continue the good work. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it isn't likely to make FA, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. kwami (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.