Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ido/archive1

Ido[edit]

Self-nomination to a certain extent; I've been taking care of and improving this article for the past few months, it has gone through a peer review as well and hasn't had any edit wars since I started working on it. Ido is one of the "big three" International Auxiliary Languages (the two others are Esperanto and Interlingua) but known by almost no-one outside the IAL movement. In addition to that its 98-year history, its role in the history of Esperanto and the neverending debate between reform and stability, as well as its presence on Wikipedia make this an article that should be featured. Mithridates 19:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Minor Objection~~. The article has some issues with image copyrights. The Seal neads a source and justification of the public domain claim. The fair use claim on "The little prince" is a bit questionable. The extract from Anne Frank's diary is claimed to be released under GFDL. I assume the copyright for this would reside with the journal or the original author. Otherwise from a quick read through the article it looks fine. --Martyman-(talk) 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. When I first uploaded the Anne Frank image in September I thought GFDL and CC to be the same thing, but it's actually CC 2.0 so I changed it to that and added a link to Adavane! where it comes from and an example issue where the license can be seen on the last page. The seal was realized by the sysop Hill on the Italian Wikipedia and has already been a FA over there and I added a note on the English page that it was realized by him/her. As for the Little Prince, it's one of the less-needed images on the page so I just hid it with  Should that suffice? Mithridates 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the little prince with comments may encourage another user to re-add it at a letter date though which would not be optimal. Otherwise it sounds good to me. I have removed my objection to the images, but don't feel I can add my support until I have had enough time to properly read through it. --Martyman-(talk) 01:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've removed the image, hidden text and all. Mithridates 01:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed by vote to support. I read through the article and wikilinked a couple of terms I felt could benefit from explanation. I do feel that the external links section could be improved by cutting down the number of links substantially. --Martyman-(talk) 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I cut out a link and reorganized the others where two lines could be written as one. Mithridates 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Objection~~ -- The article does not sufficiently establish context. Someone who doesn't know what an International Auxiliary Language is can't understand this article without stopping to read that one. A lot of that information is in the article somewhere, but the introduction should be rewritten to explain the topic in a more logical order. Remember, your reader has never heard of Esperanto and doesn't understand why anyone would (or could) "construct" a language. -- Creidieki 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To continue the above, the "History" section starts completely out of the blue. Why is someone trying to select an international language? Had there been a movement towards international languages before that? I might imagine the History section starting with brief comments about the difficulty of language learning, and the beginning of scholarship in International Auxiliary Languages, then talking about the development of Esperanto, then about the split. I don't know very much about this area, so there may be other logical orders of presentation, but I think that this is another area where there needs to be much more context. -- Creidieki 04:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I added a bit to the introduction as well as the history section. Actually I'm glad you pointed that out because I found a way to mention Lingua Ignota, the first ever (known) constructed language from the 12th century and it does help with the flow quite a bit. Mithridates 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is wonderful. The new introduction paragraph for the article was very long; I separated it into two paragraphs, but it might need some additional tweaking. The article contains some very long sentences that might use a thorough copyediting, but I'm willing to support it as-is. Good luck. -- Creidieki 23:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the new chart in, and it looks nice. Thanks. Mithridates 15:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ Minor objection, I have some problems with this article:
- I'm missing a treatment of the syllable under Phonology. What is the form of the 'canonical' syllable; is it open or closed? This is, I think, where you can see that its words come from a mixture of languages — it looks like you find both open and closed syllables. Which complex onsets are allowed? (I see sk in skolo and dr in drinkar).
- Grammar — grammar currently only treats morphology, the pronominal paradigm and the vocabulary, but not syntax. It should at least give the reader some information about how sentences are put together (including the basic constituent order -SOV/SVO/VSO etc.-). How are questions formed? How are sentences negated? Does verb inflection agree with person/number/gender (as in many of the 'donor' languages)?
- Esperanto's inventor himself recommended against using ci on the grounds that different cultures have conflicting traditions regarding the use of the familiar and formal forms of "you", and that a universal language should avoid the problem by simply using the formal form in all situations. — this statement needs to be sourced.
- — mark ✎ 08:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've referenced the part about Zamenhof's opinion on ci, and there is more explanation on syntax, forming questions, and verb conjugation. I've also added a chart on phonology (consonants). I don't suppose there another term I could use for complex onsets? There's no page on wikipedia with that name and I wouldn't want to confuse the reader. Mithridates 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions, nice chart, thanks for acting so fast. I have striked most of my objections. I don't feel very strongly about the addition of a statement on complex onsets per se; I just was looking for a general paragraph on possible and common syllable forms.

~~One other thing: is there a strong reason for the comparison with Esperanto to be the first section of the article (and a quite long one at that)? I'd save that for later, and start with Ido itself.~~ — mark ✎ 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the subject of a bit of discussion, whether to describe it compared to Esperanto or whether to introduce it by itself first. Personally I have no problem introducing it first by comparing it with Esperanto, much as how Võro is best explained first as being related to Estonian, and as long as the content does not dip into Esperanto-bashing I think it can be a good way to introduce the language. However, that's a good point (other readers might think along the same lines you did) so I added a few sentences before the comparison with Esperanto on why Ido is often first explained in this way. Mithridates 13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Building off of Creidieki's point above, I object to this article—but on one ground only. The History section, in my opinion, needs to come first, in order to give background to Ido, the movement toward international auxiliary languages, and so forth. If this changes, I will enthusiastically and without reservation support this article. A job very well done indeed. Hydriotaphia 22:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, consider it first as I've moved it up. ^-^ Once again you all are right, as it does look better this way to be honest. Mithridates 01:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wonderfully done. I support. Though I would also counsel you to put the Ido template at the top of the article instead of at the bottom. Hydriotaphia 01:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support I guess this is a "classic" encyclopedia article (as in, "what the hell is Ido? Well, I know now..."). I glanced at the original version, but am basing this on reading the current one of a few minutes ago. It reads well, long but easy to navigate with logical subheadings. The copy here and there could use some tightening, but nothing I'd call critical (I did a very minor copyedit just now). The examples and audio sample were great. Criticism: The one question that the thoroughness brought to the front of my mind (something I'd always wondered about Esperanto) is how the vocabulary is expanded. (Until now, I didn't really get the Esperanto/constructed language concept, I half thought it was some sort of fixed vocabulary thing). I believe I answered myself through the Wikipedia entry for Esperanto. It is a brief explanation somewhat like this, Esperanto words are derived by stringing together prefixes, roots, and suffixes. This is very regular, so that people can create new words as they speak and be understood. and The core vocabulary of Esperanto was defined by Lingvo internacia, published by Zamenhof in 1887. It comprised 900 roots, which could be expanded into the tens of thousands of words with prefixes, suffixes, and compounding. In 1894, Zamenhof published the first Esperanto dictionary, that I find missing for this article to be sufficiently self-contained. Although essentially covered in the Grammar section, I'm still not entirely clear on how expansion of the language and adoption of new words is handled... --Tsavage 18:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC) PS - Sorry about the damage caused by my recent copyedit (I gotta watch cut'n'paste from my text editor). Thanks Garzo/Gareth Hughes for the repair, and for politely pointing it out on my Talk page! --Tsavage 18:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The goal of making this into a FA was exactly that - turning "what the hell is Ido?" into "Well, I know now...". I didn't want to go into too much detail but I wrote two new paragraphs on the prefixes + suffixes, plus adoption of new words with a reference as well to a list of newly adopted words. Russian is missing from the ref page because the page was created in 1997 but it still gives a good idea how the system works. Mithridates 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I amended my vote to full support. That was a great couple of paras (you could maybe move 'em up right below the subhead, before the lists, for possibly improved flow...just a mild suggestion). I feel that much more...educated. --Tsavage 19:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful article, a credit to Wikipedia - would be great to see on the front page --81.99.181.231 14:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, has POV problems. The opening paragraph reads like an advertisement for Ido, and the only criticisms come from Esperantists. There should be a discussion, or at least a link to the discussion, of criticism of constructed languages in general. --Angr (t·c) 13:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]