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 promoted 16:30, 31 March 2007.

Mayan languages[edit]

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.

I think the third paragraph of the lead section could use some work - possibly the removal of the second, third and fifth sentences? These are fairly jargony for the non-specialist. This material (the link with the Mesoamerican linguistic area) doesn't appear to be treated in the 'geneaology and classification' section' - in fact it appears to be contradicted by the statement "Mayan languages as a family are unconnected with any others."

This is a technical issue a linguistic area is not afamilial unit in a linguistic sense - a linguistic family is a group of languages with a shared ancestor - the languages of the mesoamerican linguistic area do not have shared ancestry but have converge only because they were spoken in the same area - sort of like english loanwords in chinese for example do not imply a shared ancestry between chinese or english. This is very basic linguist so it will be hard to specify in the article without writing very longwindedly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might read the old nomination as there was a rather extensive discussion regarding the technical level of the lead already. Awadewit 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to read the previous nom, which sheds some light on it, but I stand by my comment. I think reducing the lead section by a few sentences and expanding the Genealogy or possibly Grammar sections by a few more would make the article considerably better. The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some very short paragraphs that can be merged. However I wouldn't go too far down that road, as short paragraphs are best when dealing with technical material.
Could the number of present-day speakers be made more immediately clear - for instance, in a table? It's just a thought.

that is why we made the List of Mayan languages ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that's an impressive table - I can see why it's not in the main article!! The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Avala 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before --Miskwito 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.