Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E language/1

E language[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted due to original research concerns outlined below. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As what I've just found, there are original researches for the contents citing the source "Greenhill, Blust & Gray 2008", and the article may not meet the second good article criterion: "Verifiable with no original research" (Criterion 2c. "It contains no original research…"). Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, agree with Sanmosa. Additionally, some information given in the article is even wrong, and some are collected in irrelevant sources. The corresponding page in zhwiki has improved a lot during June, I believe that volunteers can translated those contents into enwiki. TongcyDai (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, agree with Sanmosa n' TongcyDai. —— Eric Liu_{（Talk．Chinese userpage）} 09:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could some details of the OR and inaccuracies be given? No one has edited this article or the talk page since the GAR was filed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Filelakeshoe: For example, the source "Greenhill, Blust & Gray 2008" is just a list of 210 words, but the paragraph using this source said that "E morphology is primarily analytic", I believe that this is a typical original research. Another example, the lead section mentioned "(E language) contains a few rare phonemes: voiceless versions of the more common nasal consonants and alveolar lateral approximant", and the phonology section, "However, it contains a few unusual consonants ... All are voiceless versions of consonants that, in most languages, are always voiced". That is the editor's own summary with bias, since voiceless sonorant are actually common in Kam–Sui languages. Speaking of the language's phonology, the consonant table and the vowel table were inducted from the word list by the editor, but how can you guarantee if all the phonemes of the language coincidentally appeared in these 210 words? Plus, you can find the consonant /tɕ/ in the list, but it is not in the table; the list contains the consonant cluster /kw/, the editor changed it into a single consonant /kʷ/, yet left /ŋw/ and /hw/ unchanged. Let alone the tone contours table is wrong. Above all, I think this article does not meet the standard of Good Article. TongcyDai (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]