Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irish phonology

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

---

Irish phonology

Self-nom. This is not a typical FAC, I think, but the recent appearance of Polar coordinate system on the main page gave me hope that there is also room for articles targeted to a specialist audience. The article has had a peer review and has been listed as a Good article since November. At first I was content to keep it a GA, but then I noticed that the 1.0 assessment system says of GAs, "Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job", and in all modesty I don't think that's true. I don't think other encyclopedias could do a better job, and in fact I think this is the most comprehensive introduction to Irish phonology currently available anywhere (either online or in print, in either English or Irish). And so, since I believe it to be an "outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information", I'm nominating it for promotion to FA. —Angr 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Does this qualify for FAC then? I would've thought it would be deemed eligible as an FLC upon a cursory look of the article. LuciferMorgan 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an article, not a list. Those bulleted items are example words illustrating the points the prose is making. —Angr 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well to me it's extremely listy, so I'm opposing per 1a which asks for "compelling, brilliant prose". Convert the lists (or "bulleted items" as you refer to them) into prose and I'll change my vote. LuciferMorgan 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If you insist, but it will make the article unreadable. —Angr 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you should go for featured list - it'd pass that I reckon. LuciferMorgan 06:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It isn't a list. (What kind of list would it be? List of examples of Irish words? Give me a break.) I'm converting it to prose right now, wait and see if you like the result. —Angr 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would support this article with a few changes. First, Angr is right when he says that this article is not a list. It is an article about phonology that uses lists to make its points. Unfortunately, I think that the prose should be changed back into lists - it is far more readable that way. LuciferMorgan, these examples are not supposed to be coherent paragraphs like other lists I've seen where the writers were just too lazy to write them out. Third, I think there should be a more general introduction to the subject for the lay reader (the lead should also be able to be understood by the general reader). Angr, I would suggest imagining such an introduction as the basic lecture you give to students (Day 1 of Irish phonology or the day on Irish in a general linguistics class). Give us non-experts something. Awadewit 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll try to generalize the lead even more, though I thought it was already accessible. I did find that delistifying the section on vowel allophones was an improvement, because it allowed me to discuss the environments in which each allophone is found in more detail than I had done previously. But for the other sections, I agree that listing the example words "horizontally" (within the prose of the paragraph) is inferior to listing them "vertically" as lists. —Angr 11:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the third paragraph of the lead to be more accessible to laypeople. Let me know what you think. —Angr 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the lead is an improvement, but I still think there should be an overall introduction for the lay reader. The physicsts were able to write an entire page on quantum mechanics for the lay reader. See Introduction to quantum mechanics. Also, must you say synchronic and diachronic in the history? Not everyone has read Saussure and those are easy words to replace with more traditional language. Awadewit 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at Introduction to quantum mechanics, I would say Irish phonology is already about as layman-friendly as that article is. I can try to make a little more so (for example by reword the "synchronic/diachronic" bit), but this article isn't, and can't be, an introduction to descriptive phonology. (The article doesn't even touch on issues relating to phonological theory!) (The article barely touches on issues relating to phonological theory, and only in the section on vowel-initial words.) —Angr 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. Knowing nothing about quantum mechanics but something about grammar, I can understand much more of that article than yours. If, as you say below, this isn't an article for specialists, but it cannot be understood by well-educated people like myself who are interested in linguistics on the side, then who is it for? I really think that you do need to have some sort of general introduction. Awadewit 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I also know nothing about quantum mechanics, and I can't understand a word of the allegedly non-specialist Introduction to quantum mechanics. But that's a good thing, because it means I have something to work toward -- an encyclopedia is, after all, supposed to educate its readers, not just tell them what they already know. —Angr 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object I'm fully aware that polar coordinate system was an article that was one of the most technical FAs to date. I would certainly have objected to it had I only more insight in mathematics, but it would have just been too difficult to try to barge in as someone who knows absolutely nothing of the discipline and complain "I don't understand it, explain it for me". This is different; I'm a lot more familiar with linguistics and I understand just about all the terms involved. I don't, however, agree that this is a topic that has to be presented though it were a conference paper. While an article on phonology should be allowed to go into some detail, this juts making it easy on oneself by effectively excluding the general readership completely. The article doesn't even make an honest attempt to explain any of the phonological features in anything other than pure academic-speak. Lucifers suggestion that it would be easier to pass it off as a featured list gives a lot of food for thought... Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have you not made this same objection over at Mayan languages? Awadewit 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And do you have an actionable objection? The idea that this article is written like a conference paper is absurd: it would be laughed out of any phonology conference for being too basic, too descriptive, and for lacking original research; in short, for being an encyclopedia article targeted to a non-specialist audience. And at the risk of repeating myself, nominating it as a featured list is out of the question because it isn't a list of anything. —Angr 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Awa, it's not even half as jargon-packed and convoluted as this article, and I didn't support Mayan languages, but merely made some minor comments.

Not actionable, Angr? That's a pretty obstinate attitude. There is little or no encyclopedic prose beyond the lead. Again, you're not even trying to appeal to anyone but fellow linguists and you still want to pass it off as an FA. And of course it's not actually a paper. I said it reads like one, or better yet, like some of the course literature in linguistics I've come across. The kind that simply doesn't give a damn about trying to explain things other than those who already are completely immersed in the discipline. Neither did I seriously suggest that it should be a featured list, but that it's worth noting that Lucifer perceived it as being one.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that Mayan languages wasn't as jargon-packed, but huge swaths of it would be impenetrable to the general reader and I simply wondered why you made that a criteria for this page but not that page. Consistency on issues like that in FACs, especially from the same reviewer is, I believe, important. Awadewit 18:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you being serious about Mayan languages not being "half as jargon-packed and convoluted" as this article??? Mayan languages, which uses the terms "positionals" (neither linked nor defined), "ergative morphosyntactic alignment" (even I don't know what that means), "transitive verb/intransitive verb", "voice and aspect", "passive and antipassive (again, even I don't know what that means)" in the lead?! And that's an article about something as broad as a whole language family, not something as specific as the phonology of an individual language. Anyway, I'm working right now on "delistifying and demystifying" it now. —Angr 18:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that there is more on the Mayan languages page that I can understand than on your page. If you had looked at the FAC nomination, though, you would have noticed that I have objected to its becoming an FA until the lead is made more accessible to the lay reader. So, I do not feel that I am being inconsistent here. Awadewit 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have merely commented the Mayan languages FAC, and those were rather general comments on citations. You can blame me for being a careless or unfair reviewer when or if I take a stance, not for merely making general pointers about technicalities. I've neither objected or supported, so I can't recognize the relevance to this nomination.

Angr, I appreciate your hard work. I'll check back in the next few days to see how the article is doing.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My question is, why did you not take a stance on the Mayan languages page when this issue is clearly important to you. You say you would have opposed Polar coordinates on that basis alone. You still have a chance to oppose Mayan languages on that basis. I am confused as to why you are not doing so. Awadewit 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it would turn my Wikipedia activities into a full-time, but completely unpaid, pseudo-employment. I try to take my stances seriously, and I'm not one of those editors who objects by simple checklist procedures. And I already explained to you that I'm not particularly competent in mathematics. I tend to stay out of discussions about articles on that topic, even if I can admit that I am annoyed at the abundance of overly technical terms. If you have any more questions about this, direct them to my talk page. This is not in the least relevant to improving the nominee.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing my objection, not so much because I believe that the article is presentable to a general audience (even it has improved in the last few days), but because I can't see much consensus for making technical articles appealing to audiences without a devoted interest in the topic. I've gotten the impression that any article that is even slightly narrow in scope (and happens to be outside the scope of the classical humanities and modern fiction) appears to be exempt from the idea of being readable or compelling to anyone but professionals, academics, nerds and aficionados. So even if it is my vision of what Wikipedia should be, it doesn't feel like I have the time, resources or energy to fight for it. There just doesn't seems to be enough interest among specialists in trying to deliver all that knowledge to the masses and it's obviously not in my power to convince them otherwise.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I find the article readable and easy to understand. I have no prior knowledge of Irish. I do have some college education in linguistics but haven't completed a degree. I see nothing wrong with featuring specialized articles on academic subjects. But guys, polar coordinate system is nothing close to being as specialized as this article. It's something more or less every person with a college education in engineering or the sciences will be familiar with. For a really specialized science article try Atlas experiment. Maybe it looks less scary because it's mostly prose but it's full of specialized terminology. Haukur 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that polar coordinate system isn't as specialized as this page. Technically, anyone who has taken high-school trigonometry should be able to understand a good portion of that article. And in the United States some people even take calculus in high school, so that part would be comprehensible for them (I don't know how the whole math thing works outside the US). (For people like me, though, high-school calculus seems to have gotten buried beneath other things in my brain and I can't find it again.) But I would like to point out that even having taken introductory courses in linguistics gives you a huge advantage over the general reader with regards to this article. (I am assuming a general reader who actually knows some grammar - most of the students who come into my freshmen composition course cannot identify such basic parts of the sentence as the "subject" or the "verb" - this presents a huge problem when I say, "your verb tense is incorrent" - they have no idea what I'm saying.) I might also point out that, according to your user page, you are familiar with several different languages. That is also very helpful in understanding a page such as this. Finally, I am not opposed to specialized pages achieving FA, I just feel that they should make some attempt to communicate their information to a non-expert audience. I mean, is an expert really going to need to read them? What is the purpose of the page (this is why I asked who the audience was)? Awadewit 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, that Atlas experiment is hardly difficult compared to things like Quantum field theory or Mathematics of general relativity. What is it about physics? :) Awadewit 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right - thinking back I probably had polar coordinates in my second or third year of gymnasium. In any case there are probably more than 100 million people in the world who have a basic understanding of them. You're also right that I'm at an advantage compared to a random passer-by in understanding the Irish phonology article. Then again I would have thought that the only people who will ever be interested in reading that article can be split into two groups: those who know some Irish and those who know some linguistics. As someone from the second group I'm saying the article is fine from my POV. Of course that doesn't mean that I object to efforts at making it more accessible, I just doubt that the general Wikipedia reader will ever be interested in reading it no matter what we do. And that's okay - FAs are meant to showcase Wikipedia's best articles, even those who are not on subjects of much general interest. Haukur 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think professional phonologists may well be interested in this article, because it deals with a language with an interesting phonology that has been relatively little discussed in the literature. As I said in my nomination, this article is the most complete introduction to Irish phonology available anywhere, either online or in print, in English or in Irish. It is linguists who don't necessarily know any Irish who will want to read about it, and who I had in mind when I wrote it. Frankly, I doubt non-linguists would ever even find this page, let alone start reading it. —Angr 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. But I still think that one should make an effort to explain part of one's article to the general public. Awadewit 06:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. And as Haukur pointed out, it may also be interesting to people who know Irish but have no knowledge of phonology. They're the ones I'm trying to keep in mind as I do my rewrite. —Angr 06:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support and don't you even think of making this a list (to be blunt, what a stupid idea). This is an amazing article, though I was highly amused to discover the pronounciation of the letter v is a "Voiced labiodental fricative". I would suggest reducing some of the examples in your sentences though, it starts to wear on the eyes after a bit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm working on it! —Angr 06:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Okay, I've incorporated the examples into the paragraphs so that they are prose rather than lists. I've also tried to tone down some of the more technical language and to explain the technical terms that are used. I've also added several images to try to make some points more visually salient. Please let me know what you think! —Angr 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that (1) I do not consider this article too listy - it's right on par with most linguistics articles in that respect; and (2) as far as technical articles are concerned, at least some of the article should be accessible to laymen, but that doesn't mean the entire article must. Raul654 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The listiness complaint came when the article looked like this; it's much less listy now, and (hopefully) more accessible to laymen than it was at that point too. —Angr 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I see that revision I can see where that complaint is coming from. (But as I said, I think the article is OK now in that respect)Raul654 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article, and a lot of good hard work has been put into it. It should be found very interesting by people interested in either phonology or Irish and it strives to be accessible to both groups. Of course, if you are interested in neither, then this article is not for you, but that is irrelevant with respect to the FA criteria. Stefán 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Although I still feel that this article should have had an introduction for the lay reader, I do not want to discourage good academic work from being done for wikipedia. I also want to commend Angr for his efforts in recent days to make the article more readable; I do believe that he has succeeded. Awadewit 12:50, 16 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.