Wikipedia:Featured article review/Thou/archive1

Thou[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

No Wiki Projects linked: left message at User talk:Ihcoyc, original FA nominator. Sandy 14:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks inline citations
Has very short sections
Listy intro
May need some better section organization

Todor →Bozhinov 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very odd FA. I agree with the nominator. Heading "The modern plural problem" (my emphasis) is, IMV, POV. Tony 16:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a number of in-line citations to the article on various facts related in it, and cited that great authority Rob Liefeld once. Please note that many other statements lack inline citations primarily because they already say what they are quoting in the text itself. I'd like to see specific authority on the north British dialect persistence of thou, but I did not write those parts. The list in the intro seems the best way to handle that. Smerdis of Tlön 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else find the picture of Shakespeare (with its weasel caption) a little random? Pagra shtak 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit, but it's true that people think of "thou" as a Shakespearian affectation, and I'm hard put to think of a better lede image for this article. What do you propose — an image of a loaf of bread and a jug of wine? ;?) Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I propose that if the caption "Most modern English speakers think of "thou" as a relic of Shakespeare's day" is to stay, that it needs a reference, as it is weasel text. There is no rule that all articles much have images - perhaps this article would be better served by having no image in the lead. Pagra shtak 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written the lede, changed the section names and structure, and copyedited a little. This should help address the above concerns. Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (2c), short sections and structure (5), intro (3a). Marskell 09:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lead is not Ok. Can it be fixed according to WP:LEAD.Keep--Yannismarou 18:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations have been added, sections have been consolidated and restructured, and the lede rewritten. It could still be improved, but it's enough up to snuff to keep the gold star. Peirigill 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Here's what's been done since listing at FAR.
- The list of comparisons should be in this order: Modern English, Middle English, Frisian, Dutch, and German. The current order is chaotic.
- The grammatical terminology is too Latinate (especially "genitive", which would be simpler and more widely comprehended as "possessive").
- Rather under-referenced.

I guess it's OK. Tony 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most problems have been addressed. Sandy 12:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status. Not comfortable closing this with two fact requests in the lead. "'Thou' was later used to express familiarity, intimacy, or disrespect." This is fairly time of day and I'm sure can be easily cited. "'Thou' persists, sometimes in altered form, in regional dialects of England and Scotland." For this, one would expect a good source. If anyone is watching the review, maybe track down those citations? Marskell 21:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have used an article found on JSTOR to satisfy the need for the latter citation. I think the former {{fact}} tag can be removed as it is covered later in the article. Andrew Levine 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]