Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mayan languages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maunus (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 26 March 2007 (→[[Mayan languages]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mayan languages

An excellent article which has been brought to a high standard by the editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica (not so much by me). Referencing is thurough and comprehensive as is its coverage of the topic. Takes steps to explain necessary jargon and explains difficult concepts well. The issues identified by a previous peer review have been adressed. There are no ongoing disputes and the article is stable (the recent spate of edits is caused by editors going over it with a fine-toothed comb in FA preperation). Eluchil404 14:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I am among those who have worked on the article and I can attest to the hard work and attention to detail we have all put in it. We have also had some very fruitful discussions and the high quality of the article is mostly a tribute to the fact that noone has wanted to settle for less. It is well illustrated in an innovative manner which I think can serve as an example for other articles on language families. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm a WP:Meso project member, but have not contributed to this article. As a Mayanist, but not a linguist or someone who knows much about languages, I appreciate how well this article treats a incredibly complex topic in a way to make it comprehendible to non-specialists. I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. -- Oaxaca dan 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref #4 has no page number.--Rmky87 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great introduction, content, images, and tables. Very informative. Leon math 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Lots and lots of concerns (mostly having to do with criterion 1(a) and 2(c), and under-referencing). So much concerns in fact that I will be posting them at talk:Mayan languages/Comments when I'm done typing them. See Talk:Iguanodon/Comments to get an idea of how thorough I can be. And know that there is MUCH more to gripe about in this here article. Circeus 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oppose I found this article highly informative, if a little listy and, I would assume, difficult, at times, for a reader unfamiliar with grammatical terms. The images were extremely useful - kudos there. I am almost ready to support it. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • Parts of the lead are, I think, written in a language that is too specific for the general reader. For example, "sprachtbund" should be defined or replaced with simpler language and the use of a large inventory of "positionals" to signal position of objects, ergative morphosyntactic alignment and elaborate systems of voice and aspect which include several types of passive and antipassive constructions contains too many unfamiliar terms for a lead, in my opinion.
    • I still think that the lead is far too difficult for the general reader, specifically the third paragraph. If the lead is all that someone reads, he or she will not be able to understand the topic. Clicking on the terms one does not know is not helpful either, since those pages are (in general) written in a language that is even more jargon-heavy. Who are the editors thinking of as their audience? To me, it seems that they are aiming at other linguists rather than at the general reader with a passing knowledge of grammar. Although I have less of a problem with this as the article proceeds into technicalities, the lead should be understandable by a broader section of the educated public without the necessity of repeated clicking through numerous pages. Awadewit 01:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "History" section is written as if languages move on their own - this is awkward. It results in sentences such as the following: When the Tzeltalan branch of the Cholan languages later moved into the Chiapas highlands they came into contact with speakers of Mixe-Zoquean languages. - The language did not come into contact with the speakers. Also, the section then shifts to highlighting speakers of the language. Perhaps a consistent approach? Either the languages are agents or the speakers of the languages are agents.
I haven tried to amend these problems in earlier edits to the history section today, and have continued to rephrase the "subjugation" phrase which was indeed a little fuzzy. Please read through the section to see if you find the problem solved.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Striking objection. Awadewit 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the article needs a few more references. There are, for example, no references in the "Sign Language" section and only one in the "Glyphic writing" section.
    • I would like to reiterate that the article is short on citations. Although I question the need for the literature section (see below), it has NO citations. Awadewit 12:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI would like to defend the inclusion of a literature section. (I will procede to provide citations afterwards) The section on literature is necessary because the fact that mayan languages have a body of literature written in them is not well known and quite possibly surprising to many. Furthermore I think that a short description of literary traditions is relevant for any language family that do not have as well documented a writing tradition as the indoeuropean and south east asian ones. For me it is simply a question of providing information to readers and countering the systemic bias.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense. It had not occurred to me that people would assume there was no literature; my default assumption is always "there is a literature." I now agree with you that there should be a (cited) literature section. Awadewit 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided some citations for the literature section, they are however citations to works on the general topic. With claims that are so general in their nature it is difficult to find a specific source with page number etc. I hope you find it sufficient. Are there other sections that you feel need more citations?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your problem and I find your citations adequate. The only problem now is the citations themselves are formatted incorrectly. They do not have paranthesis around the year of publication, for example. Awadewit 09:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do now.(I should remind however that there are only style guidelines and not rules in Wikipedia:Footnotes and that it doesn't mention there being one correct way to cite a book in a footnote, nor that the best way to cite a book in a footnote includes a parenthesis (in fact the examples given specifically do not use parenthesis)- Harvard references do but the article doesn't use Harvard. Nor does the FA criteria state that an FA article has to use a specific citation style)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I find that a serious flaw in WP:Footnotes and the other citation pages on wikipedia. But the citations did not even match the other ones on Mayan languages. That is the issue. I was not saying "all footnotes must include parantheses" (I don't even do my footnotes in that style), I was pointing out, indirectly, that those added to the literature section did not conform to those already on the page. I do believe FA pages should have a consistent style, whatever style that may be. Awadewit 11:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for providing more citations it would be a great help if you would put in {{fact}} wherever you find claims that you believe require a citation. Having read so extensively on the topic I think I have acquired a certain blindness towards these instances because I know they are well founded. According to the FA criteria citations are required where a claim is likely to be challenged - I have a hard time imagining such challenges because in my opinion no controversial material is in the article. But others might be more imaginative or see controversial claims that need citation - if you provided the fact-tags I will provide the citations.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added few tags. One of the reasons for citations, though, is also so that the curious can find more information, so I don't think it's good when whole paragraphs go by without citations. Awadewit 14:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would you mind taking another look Awadewit - I've done some work on incorporating sources to your fact-tags.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still entire subsections without any citations. If the editors add a single citation to those subsections and standardize the footnotes (some have the year in paranthesis and some do not, etc.), I will support the article. It is so close. Awadewit 03:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided references for all subsections and done my best to standardize the remaining notes with parentheses etc.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*In the "Relations with other families" section, might you mention who Greenberg and Campell are - perhaps Mayan language scholars?

*The modern Mayan languages have evolved from a common ancestor that has been reconstructed (Campbell and Kaufman 1985) using the comparative method. - This should be an inline citation like all of the rest.

  • Another common feature in Mayan is the use of clitics and 'free forms' (particles) which syntactically are in-between words and affixes. - This sentence could probably be explained a little further for the reader unfamiliar with linguistic terms.
I have struck this sentence since it would have been necessary to expand it into a full paragraph for it to become informative.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*It can be useful for us to mentally assign a single meaning to each prefix, even if that meaning cannot exactly correspond to the intuitive understanding of a native speaker. - suddenly switches to first person

  • The "Tense/Aspect systems" and "Voice" subsections are a bit hard to unravel for the average reader, I think. For comparison, newspapers are often written on a eighth-grade reading level. These sections are far above that. Perhaps they are so far down in the article - indicating a self-selecting readership that assumes linguistic knowledge - that this criticism is irrelevant.
It has been awhile since these sections were incorporated into a general "Grammar" section which necessarily includes a lot of grammatical terminology. The terms are wikilinked (I don't think we can be blamed for the dstination articles being as bad as many of them grantedly are) and short attempts at explanation are provided for many of the more exotic terms. I don't think we can afford to explain terminology in much more detail or the article will become a lesson in linguistic vocabulary. The reader who doesn't skip the grammar section can be assumed to have a basic knowledge of crosslinguistic grammar in my opinion. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*"relational nouns" is red-linked - perhaps you could create a quick page?

  • I don't think that the "Literature" section is necessary. It is tangential to the topic and there is a separate page.

*Might you consider putting a link to the "Maya Script" page under the "Writing systems" heading?

*Why are the journal volumes in bold? I don't think that is necessary.

    • It's a referencing convention that is normal for journals, and is here governed by {{cite journal}}. Circeus 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, then. (I must say, though, that is one strange convention; to an academic like myself, it looks quite odd. It is not standard MLA-style or Chicago-style, for example.) Awadewit 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uhm, this is anything but a hard policy and many editors don't use the citation templates in FAs. (I avoid them because I think they add unnecessary wikicode that only makes it harder for newbies to edit.) You can use most standard citations formats as long as its consistent within the article./ Peter Isotalo 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, and this is of course a subjective reaction, I found "Overview of Mayan languages and Linguistic groups" to be a bit listy and cumbersome. Is there any way to tighten up this section? The other sections were, in my opinion, more concise as well as more interesting. Awadewit 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to incorporate some of the long list of comments by Circeus into the article. Generally he is very right in his judgements but there are some of his ideas with which I thoroughly disagree. For example I am convinced that the long and somewhat listy overview part is preferrable because its alternative is a list. I think it is a good way of combining geographical and demographical information with the genealogical classification. I don't believe this information can be presented in a much better way. I do believe that readers who make it to the grammar section will only do so if they have at least a minimum of linguistic background knowledge - selfselecting readership it is. As for the lack of citation I have tried to add some but generally it is the same works being used throughout, mostly Campbell 1997, England 1994 and Suárez 1983 and I find it a bit exaggerrated to pinpoint every statement made to these since in many cases that would mean three or four sequential citations to the same page of the same book within a paragraph. I do not find it to be out of line to base several claims on on citation. Thanks for the thorough work Circeus! ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to mention that it was I (Awadewit) who posted the comments. Also, I agree with you on the references - up to a point. As I pointed out, you basically had whole paragraphs (which covered more than one topic) that had only one reference. I'll look over it again later and see if I can support it now. Awadewit 10:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I meant specifically the long list of comments on the page Talk:Mayan languages/Comments. Your comments are also very useful Awadewit.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm starting to see what's gone on here - I think some (or most) of the problems with the writing/language, especially Circeus' concerns (Talk:Mayan languages/Comments) are the result of several additions to the article by members of the WP:Meso who are not native english speakers, but speak it well enough to add content. In reading his comments, and re-reading the article, I see that Circeus is largely correct in regards to the clarity and composition of chunks of text. I'll try and go through it to see if I can make it more fluid. -- Oaxaca dan 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object 1a. Problematic prose throughout the article (at least to me). Take the second-to-last paragraph in the History section as an example:
    • During the 20th century, as Maya archaeology advanced and various nationalist and ethnic-pride-based ideologies crossed the world stage, the various Mayan language groups began to develop a shared ethnic identity as Maya, the inheritors of the great Maya civilization.
      • Long, rambling, incoherent sentence. What the heck does "various nationalist and ethnic-pride-based ideologies crossed the world stage" mean? That's pretty generic. Unclear what that has to do with the Mayan language in that sentence.
        • It means that the advance of Maya archaeology and the awakening of "indigenous pride" (for want of a better word this moment) has helped kick-start a shared ethnic identity: being "Maya".Madman 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Repetition of "various", which is a redundant word anyway.
      • I don't think "inheritors" works here; perhaps "descendants".
        • On the contrary, "inheritors" shows a sense of pride while "descendants" is a more passive term with a slight perjorative sense (warranted or not) thru its association with "descend". Madman 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me (a non-linguist), "Mayan language groups" signifies inanimate groups of languages, not people; thus, can languages share an ethnic identity? People who speak the languages can, but (as far as I know) not languages themselves.
      • "began to develop" -> "developed".
    • The word "Maya" itself, probably based on the Postclassic Yucatán city of Mayapan, was associated only with parts of the Yucatán Peninsula in pre-colonial and colonial times, and its current meaning is mainly based on the recognition of the linguistic family.
      • "Was associated only with..." So Maya referred to a place in pre-colonial/colonial times? "Associated...with" is a pretty vague phrase, too. What does that mean?
      • "based on the recognition of" What does that mean?
        • I think the meaning is clear: "Maya" formerly and generally referred to a place ("parts of the Yucatán Peninsula") but nowadays it refers to a linguistic family. I have edited it to: The word "Maya" was likely derived from the Postclassic Yucatán city of Mayapan, and was used to refer to parts of the Yucatán Peninsula in pre-colonial and colonial times. At present, the term refers primarily to the linguistic family. Madman 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure I agree. I am largely the author of this paragraph, so probably not the best one to make a call on what it actually conveys, but what I meant to say here was that it used to have the similar set of meanings as the modern word (a people, a language, an adjective for cultural products, practices, and artifacts), but in the much narrower context of the (north?)western Yucatan. --Homunq 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This identity supplements, but does not generally replace, the primary ethnic identities based on specific languages. Huh? "the primary ethnic identities based on specific languages": Mayan ethnic identities? Specific Mayan languages?
          • Again, I'd welcome edits, but my meaning is that if you ask the average Mayan person "what ethnicity are you? Is that person over there of the same ethnicity?" or related questions, most typically they would first answer in terms of a specific language group ("I'm Kaqchikel." "That person is not the same, she is Tzutujil.") but then mention a secondary, pan-Mayan identity ("We Kaqchikels are Mayan." "She and I are both Mayan, though."). How could we say this more clearly?
    • Thus the idea of a language being "Mayan" is more salient than the idea of English being "Indo-European". I don't follow the "thus". How does this idea follow from what was previously said? Also, I'm assuming "English language" is meant here?--Homunq 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It follows because linguistic relationships are a main criteria for pan-ethnic identity for a Mayan, but not for an Indo-European speaker, as was just said. Please, edit or remove this sentence if this is not clear.--Homunq 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paradoxically, this pride in unity has led to a move away from the word "dialect" for describing Mayan languages, as this word was sometimes historically used to make a racist distinction between Amerindian and European languages. Why would this be a "paradox"? Also, "this pride in unity" suggests the previous sentence refers to a pride in unity, but I'm not seeing it. So, what pride in unity are we talking about?
          • This is a "paradox" because a pride based on unity has led to a term that is emphasizing separateness. Contrast with the situation for Chinese, ref in the footnote. The "this" refers to the topic of the whole paragraph - Mayan identity.
    • Although many Mayan languages are sufficiently closely related to be called dialects by the linguistic definition of the term they are now always referred to as languages each with their own name and connected ethnic identity. Personification of linguistic definitions may work in some weird poem, but not here. Probably needs a comma after "term". "they are now always referred to as languages each with their own name and connected ethnic identity" is quite awkward. Gzkn 03:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "By" changed to "under", it would have been easier to do such a minor edit yourself than complain. Comma added. You're right about the awkward last clause.--Homunq 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even though this paragraph is written in a formal, perhaps academic, tone, I think that the message is rather straightforward: The people in the separate Maya groups are starting to build a larger (geographically and headcount-wise) "Maya" identity. Madman 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Disclaimer: I did not write the paragraph in question. I am not a linguist but rather a mono-lingual. I hope that these comments are taken as disagreement and not combativeness.[reply]


  • Support I am another main contributer, and would love to see this reach FA. I think that essentially all of the objections raised so far have been addressed, EXCEPT the weak citation in parts of the "history", "writing", and "literature" sections. By my lights, the only uncited paragraph which provides anything but "common knowledge" that is present in just about any one of the sources is the one about pan-Mayan identity, discussed above. I think it's worthwhile info, but I'd be willing to see it temporarily removed until someone can chase down the references mentioned here. As for the quality of prose, I'm too close to judge; but I'd say the article is at least GA, being quite well-covered. --Homunq 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Don't deal with our concern about ambiguity in the article by explaining to us reviewers. Do it by editing the article. (cf. several of Homunq's answers to Gzkn above) that the article is scholarly in tone is not an excuse for it to be understandable to scholars only. Circeus 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article. The offending paragraph has been extensively edited (though it remains uncited). And by the way, the "academic" comment was Maunus - while the useless responses are my fault. But they helped me work out how to edit it. --Homunq 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I haven't had the time to give the article a good re-reading yet, and I mistook them for explanations without actual edit. I'll try to give it a read, although my previous glance (i.e. when I edited the tables) isn't very encouraging, frankly. Circeus 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you may still nix it, especially since the sourcing in the History section is still weak. In that case, it would be helpful if you clarified which of your objections are blocking, and which you'd be willing to overlook (I'm specifically thinking of the stuff that's contested, such as the language list, the table usage, the small caps, and the sourcing in the grammar section). All in all, you've mixed some relatively minor concerns in with weightier ones - the thoroughness is appreciated, as long as you are clear what is weighty to you. ("All of it" is of course an OK answer.) --Homunq 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can work these issues. I'm more likely to keep opposing on writing quality grounds and undercitation, as I wrote above. I'm going to have a look at it right now and see what pointers I can give/what editing I can do by myself. If you haven't already done so, I still think a shout at the league of copyeditors can help greatly.Circeus 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shout: Done.--Homunq 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: this is a fantastic article, and the pictures and graphics are great. However, it still does need a bit more sourcing, I think, as Circeus has said. I also have a few other comments:
    • I've brought up two questions on the talk page
    • "For those unfamiliar with ergativity, it can be useful to mentally assign a single meaning to each prefix, even if that meaning is imprecise." - What is this sentence supposed to mean, exactly?
    • The marking of aspiration on affricates is inconsistant. Plain affricates are marked as aspirated in the Proto-Mayan table, but nowhere else that I can see in the article. Were they aspirated or not?
Comment The specific source for the protomayan reconstruction (Campbell 1997) shows aspiration. The sources for the other soundchanges does not - this doesn't mean that there is no aspiration in the modern languages only that it is not marked, probably because it is redundant in as a phonemic feature.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, I still think it's rather inconsistent. But I guess there isn't really any good way to fix that easily --Miskwito 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that some Mayan languages have retroflex as well as palato-alveolar affricates and fricatives isn't mentioned until the section on orthography; should it maybe be mentioned in the phonology section as well?
comment I have reinserted a paragraph bit about the phonological changes in the different groups and this mentions the t>tʃ>tʂ chain shift in mamean and its diffusion into chujean.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's barely any mention of any colonial orthography in the section titled "Colonial and modern orthography"--the section title thus strikes me as misleading
--Miskwito 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most of my questions/concerns have been addressed. And as I said, it really is a great, informative, well-illustrated article. --Miskwito 21:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There now seem to be some unreferenced claims in the section on writing? Until they're referenced, I'm withdrawing my support vote, although I'm not voting oppose. --Miskwito 09:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the claims have been there all the time I just found the section to be underreferenced and put in tags to encourage someone to dig up the quotes.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then that's my bad for not even picking up on the fact that the whole section was barely referenced. But I'm not going to vote support while a section is has barely any references, whether it was always like that or not. --Miskwito 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted quotes for the {{fact}}-tags.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changed back to support --Miskwito 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the citations are built using Wikipedia templates (e.g. "{{cite web. . ." etc), so it amazes me that reviewers are complaining about the formatting. Madman 04:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at it, you'll see none of the Ethnograph ones are.Circeus 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tangential note. One of the problems with the wikipedia templates is that many of them are not built on any recognized citation standard, so people like myself who are familiar with many citation styles but not with wikipedia templates often note anomalous citation styles when they are actually done through a template. These quibbles just demonstrate that wikipedia should choose a single citation standard that is widely recognized (such as MLA or Chicago). Awadewit 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, another problem is that, when it comes to citations, everybody wants different elements in citations, (I myself, for example, can't stand journal abbreviations) and Wikipedia also tries to accommodate its web base (i.e. by not writing the url of links, as mandated by most referencing styles, and by listing various ways to access a source). In the end, we have a "house style" that makes sense, and that is what is most important. We couldn't expect users coming from 20 different study fields, all of which have conflicting styles, to stick to one when writing their articles. In the end, it usually falls on Wikignomes to somewhat standardize and tweak references across the wiki.Circeus 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus is not talking about different elements, he/she is talking about how to represent those elements. No one would argue that the name of the journal should be excluded, for example. Moreover, there are generally accepted "science" and "humanities" styles that could be adopted. It is simply not true that each discipline has its own style. For wikipedia to invent its own style only confuses people already familiar with citation and invites needlessly long debates. Awadewit 00:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(and forcing people to use a given style invites the same debate, given that this is a wiki.) The Ethnograph cites are still incomplete in, e.g. giving "ethnologue report on Foo" as a full web cite in a footnote. Also, said footnotes cite at least 3 (1990, 2004, 1998) independent ethnologue refs, but I can only find a 2006 one. Compare with any recent FA. The formatting might not be purely academic, but is everywhere more accessible (and consistent within the article) than what we find here. Circeus 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that some debates keep coming up (such as the citation one) and are not really worth having repeatedly. If there were a clearer and saner policy, reviewers and editors would not have to spend so much time discussing the issue of citations. By the way, I was not referring to anything in particular in the article (my earlier complaint on this point, Circeus had answered). I just wanted to raise the issue as an on-going problem. I should probably take this discussion elsewhere. Moreover, I feel that there are more substantive problems with the article than the citation issues (see above). Awadewit 02:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of arguing academic citation styles; these are not adequate references under any style:

  • Ethnologue report on Ixil
  • Ethnologue report for Tektitek
  • Ethnologue report on Chontal de Tabasco
  • Ethnologue report on Chorti.
  • According to Ethnologue 1990 data.
  • EZLN communicado, Jan. 6, 1994: [1].
  • Ethnologue, 1998.
  • Ethnologue, 2004.
  • Ethnologue's 1986 survey counted only 12 remaining native speakers.
  • Ethnologue report on Ch'ol de Tila, Ethnologue report on Ch'ol de Tumbalá

Did I mention the External Link farm? See WP:NOT and WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand pardons. I thought you were referring to the References.
I am confused, however, about your comment "Did I mention the External Link farm? See WP:NOT and WP:EL." Ethnologue is the comprehensive source for language statistics and overviews. For example, footnote #31 was tied to the following sentence: According to the Ethnologue the number of speakers of Tektitek is growing, and the footnote references Ethnologue's page on Tekitek. What's wrong with this?? You seem to imply that there are too many Ethnologue footnotes, but on the other hand, the article was cited (so to speak) for being under-referenced.
Curiously yours, Madman 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about what you're not understanding, but Maunus (talk · contribs) has already pruned the External links, so that concern is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If External links are used used as references, they should be in the references section.
Sandy, Maunus might be confused because he makes a specific distinction between "citing" (Having footnotes indicating the specific source of content) and "referencing" (Having a thorough and comprehesive list of used references in the "references" section).Circeus 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More: I just added punctuation to the end of two sentences I saw at random: another indication of the need for a thorough copyedit. I also completed one of the Ethnologue references for you as a sample of work needed:

The site has an author and a publication date, and each page has a page name; those should be included in the citation. If the links ever change or go dead, this info will help readers find the pages again. Also, wikilink retrieval dates so date preferences will work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I have gone thru and attempted to use that format as appropriate. Madman 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back for another look, per request; I see that references are still not fully formatted. For example, EZLN communicado, Jan. 6, 1994: [1] and According to Ethnologue 1990 data. Where do we find the 1990 data, and who is the publisher etc. of this EZLN communicado? Full and consistent formatting hasn't been employed. Also, some access dates are wikilinked, others aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hav taken care of the above, provided more references. I cut the EZLN communicado because the information was of marginal relevance and the website referenced didn't have any explicit author or publisher and hence didn't constitute a reliable source.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just gone through about the first half of the article doing minor copyediting (though I'm sure I didn't catch everything). I have a few more comments/questions/concerns:
    • I asked this already, but it wasn't answered: For those unfamiliar with ergativity, it can be useful to mentally assign a single meaning to each prefix, even if that meaning is imprecise. - What is this sentence supposed to mean, exactly?
    • Minor unresolved differences in genealogical classification include the positioning by some scholars of Cholan and Q'anjob'alan-Chujean as forming a separate Western branch...whereas other linguists classify these as two distinct branches emanating from the proto-language. - The wording here is confusing. Does this mean that while some linguists group Cholan and Q'anjob'alan-Chujean together as its own branch (the Western branch), others don't group the two together, but have them as just two more branches of Mayan, no closer related to each other than to any other branch?
      • (answer:Yes that's what it means - i've attempted to reword it into something clearer)
    • Tzotzil and Tzeltal populations have large numbers who are monolingual, and are the main local sources of support (along with Chol and Tojolab'al) for the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. - This makes it sound like the languages are supporting the Zapista Army, to me.
      • (comment it is of course the speakers, I'll reword this)
    • It has only 3,000 speakers and is the native language of Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú. - It doesn't make any sense to me to group the two parts of this sentence together. They're not really connected in any way.
      • (I'll change that too)
    • In some early classifications, Achi is counted as K'iche' because of the close affiliation between those two languages. - The tense usage here is confusing me a little bit. Does anyone still classify Achi that way?
      • (Yes, for example Campbell 1997, Achi is only classified as a separate language byt the ALMG because of an historical enmity between the kiche of rabinal (Achi) and the k'iche of utatlan, the differences between the languages are trivial)
    • Written in an orthography adapted from Spanish, it traces the history of the ruling classes of the Kakchiquel people. - Why is this spelled "Kakchiquel" here?
      • (bcause it hadn't been corrected yet. - it has now)
    • ...may show parallel evolution and/or some incidental relation to Mayan art and hieroglyphics. - Huh? In what way? This is a really vague statement. Frankly, I don't think the Mayan Sign Language section should even be in the article. If it's an "ethnic" thing, so-to-speak, it should go in Maya peoples, maybe. But it shouldn't be in this article.
      • (i've cut the section)
    • Mayan languages have one type of word characteristic to them: positionals. - This is rather poorly-written, and it also doesn't describe positionals at all (they're described later in the article, but readers should have at least a very basic idea of what they are after first encountering the term). I'm a bit unsure as to how to reword it to make it better, though.
      • (I'm pretty sure my own original wording was better, i'll look back to earlier versions)
    • The grammar of Mayan languages, although complex and agglutinative, is simpler than that of other Mesoamerican languages. - I tagged this with {{fact}}. In whose opinion is Mayan grammar simpler than that of other Mesoamerican languages? In what way is it simpler?
      • (Suárez 1983 p65 writes: "Neither Tarascan nor Mayan have words as complex as those found in Nahuatl, Totonac or Mixe-Zoque, but, in different ways both have a rich morphology" - I'll insert this quote)
    • I'm not happy with the description of "statives". I'm still a bit unclear on what they are and how they work, and I imagine a lay reader with no background in linguistics would be much more confused. Speaking of statives, the sentence Statives are a class of predicative words that have the meaning of a quality or state needs to be rewritten (what does it mean to say they "have the meaning of a quality or state", exactly?)
      • (I think it's perfectly clear and its very close to Suárez wording, a different explanation which is eurocentric would be to say that they are in between adjectives and verbs)
    • In one sentence, it's claimed that Mayan languages are agglutinating and polysynthetic. In the very next sentence, we're told that Mayan words tend to be morphologically simple. These are completely contradictory statements. Which is it?

(I've tried to reword this into something more sensible

--Miskwito 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in itallics by ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment that is of course an entirely subjective reason for not supporting. It would be more helpful if you could be specific as to why you are not compelled by the prose and whaich improvements you would do to make it more brilliant. (I have changed the single bulleted list of the article into (hopefully brilliant) prose)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Maunus, I think this is a very clear and unsubjective objection; I can easily see which parts of the article could be considered "too listy". What is not so clear is how to address this. For (probably the most important) example: How would you include individual information about the over 20 Mayan languages, without sounding "listy"? (The authors of this article have tended to feel that going to an actual list or table would be a step in the wrong direction.) Clearly, such information is necessary for the article. --200.6.251.198 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct Mr 200 -- when the goal of an article is to provide an overview of two dozen languages, it's difficult not to be "listy". Regarding actual lists or tables, there are many in the article, including a genealogically-ordered list and well as tables highlighting the difference between the languages. Check out Germanic languages for a truly listy article of similar scope. Madman 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The overview section may feel "listy" but it is written the way it is because we converted an actual list into prose (while linking to the List of Mayan languages). There is simply no way to list information like that without it feeling listy. But I think it is important that in the article make it into prose.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, after a number of the suggestions above have been implemented (and I believe most of them have been). I believe that the article is complete, factual, and presented in as compelling a way as possible (i.e. the details surrounding pronunciation shifts will never likely yield "compelling prose"). Madman 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment whose support is expressed by the above statement? A signature is required for it to count towards establishing a consensus.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC) It was mine. : ) Sheepishly yours, Madman 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that no one has sufficiently addressed my criticism above that the lead in particular is incomprehensible to lay readers (it is the third paragraph that I am most worried about). The lead, of all things in the article, should be "compelling." Let us look at the following sentence (which has been improved, I acknowledge): Mayan languages also possess a set of grammatical and typological features that set them apart from other languages of Mesoamerica, such as the use of a large inventory of positionals to signal position of objects; ergative morphosyntactic alignment, which treats the subject of an intransitive verb the same as the object of a transitive verb; and elaborate systems of voice and aspect, which include several types of passive and antipassive constructions.
  • The distinction between "transtive" and "intransitive" verbs is lost on the average reader; in addition, you have introduced a complex term first that may cause them to quit reading.
  • Do you seriously expect a general reader to know what "voice" and "aspect" mean?
  • Again, "passive" constructions cannot be distinguished from "active" constructions (if they even know the terms) by the average reader and "antipassive" is far from familiar to even those who know grammar well.
  • If one is a good reader and clicks on all of these words, one is taken to even more detailed and difficult pages, full of unfamiliar words and grammatical concepts. I do not think that it is a good idea, in a lead, to rely on links to more specialized pages.
  • Why cannot this sentence be generalized? Isn't that what a lead is for, in many ways? Why doesn't it just say: "Mayan languages also possess a set of grammatical and typological features that set them apart from other languages of Mesoamerica, such as their treatment of verbs and direct objects" or something along those lines? It seems to me that that would be more in line with the rest of the lead, anyway. Awadewit 09:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't revert it if you were to change the phrase into such a wording.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am always reticent to change something on a page about which I know nothing. The change I am proposing is not copyediting. From what I can gather, I think it's correct. Do you know? Awadewit 10:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your formulation is not incorrect, I will think a bit, however, if I can find a wording that is more informative but at the same level of technicality.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at it now and see how you like it?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is much better for a lead. Awadewit 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that third paragraph, may I suggest an even more radical pruning:

The Mayan languages form part of the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area, an area of linguistic convergence developed throughout millennia of interaction between the peoples of Mesoamerica. All of the Mayan languages display the basic diagnostic traits of this linguistic area. For example, all use relational nouns instead of prepositions to indicate spatial relationships. Mayan languages also possess a set of grammatical and typological features that set them apart from other languages of Mesoamerica. (see Unique Maya features section below) , for example the grammatical treatment of verbs and direct objects, specific inflectional categories on verbs, and even a special word class called "positionals" which is typical of all Mayan languages.

I am suggesting moving this detailing of these differences into a separate section (which I don't believe exists today) that readers can refer to. I do think that the 3rd paragraph has been improved already by the pruning discussed. Madman 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is the entire grammar section, so a reference to that should suffice. I do think that the current wording is ok since it provides a minimum of information to entice also the linguistically inclined reader to read on.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Awadewit 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer keep track of who opposes the article's promotion and whether their concerns have been taken care of or not. I think we have come a long way since the initial nomination, but the discussion has become very fragmentaric.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istead of commenting inside the new list of concerns I will comment above where they originally appeared, and you may just strike them from the list below when you find them to be adequately taken care of.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose Although I still oppose, I believe this article can reach FA status. Here are my objections from above that have either not been addressed or responded to. (I'm just copying them).
  • The "History" section is written as if languages move on their own - this is awkward. It results in sentences such as the following: When the Tzeltalan branch of the Cholan languages later moved into the Chiapas highlands they came into contact with speakers of Mixe-Zoquean languages. - The language did not come into contact with the speakers. Also, the section then shifts to highlighting speakers of the language. Perhaps a consistent approach? Either the languages are agents or the speakers of the languages are agents.
  • I think that the article needs a few more references. There are, for example, no references in the "Sign Language" section and only one in the "Glyphic writing" section.
    • I would like to reiterate that the article is short on citations.
  • Another common feature in Mayan is the use of clitics and 'free forms' (particles) which syntactically are in-between words and affixes. - This sentence could probably be explained a little further for the reader unfamiliar with linguistic terms.
  • The "Tense/Aspect systems" and "Voice" subsections are a bit hard to unravel for the average reader, I think. For comparison, newspapers are often written on a eighth-grade reading level. These sections are far above that. Perhaps they are so far down in the article - indicating a self-selecting readership that assumes linguistic knowledge - that this criticism is irrelevant.
  • Finally, and this is of course a subjective reaction, I found "Overview of Mayan languages and Linguistic groups" to be a bit listy and cumbersome. Is there any way to tighten up this section? The other sections were, in my opinion, more concise as well as more interesting. Awadewit 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (new addition) There has been some discussion recently about the inherent problems in making this section less "listy," so this is not as strong an objection as the rest. Awadewit 13:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to express my strong support for the FA nomination. Let me say first of all that I think the article is excellent. However, this evaluation will doubtless be more useful and meaningful once I explain the direction from which I am coming as a reader. I am NOT an expert in Mayan studies (very important point; also I have had nothing to do with the writing of this article, apart from being a member of the Mesoamerican project), although I have worked for the past five years in the general area of Mesoamerican and Central American languages and linguistics (and for thirty-five years in other areas of linguistics and old-world languages). Thus, for one thing, I think I have a clear idea about what good writing about languages should look like, and Mayan Languages is well written. My other "qualification" for having such an opinion is that, while not a specialist in Mayan, I have, as a scholar in the general area, attempted over recent years to inform myself through general reading about the basics of this very important language family; I've seen some (though not all) of the available literature, both scholarly and "popular", on the subject; and I've struggled to acquire a general understanding of the subject. In consequence, I am in a good position to say that it is a complex subject and a pretty massive one too, and I do not envy anyone the task that has been so admirably performed here of synthesising it all in an article of limited length that manages to achieve both scientific rigour and readability. I didn't think it could be done! Working on my own through the materials previously available it took me quite a long time before I stopped feeling lost and overwhelmed. It has to be borne in mind that, for newcomers to the subject, there really is an information overload problem here; in fact, it's about as mind-boggling as a first visit to one of the major Maya archaeological sites. It takes great skill and knowledge to lead someone by the arm on a guided tour, past the endless maze of details, providing the right amount of information to satisfy an intelligent visitor's curiosity, not talk nonsense, and have them come out at the other end feeling that they understand what they have seen and may even wish to come back for more next time. In other words, please do give credit for the difficulty of the task that has been performed here. I would venture to suggest that perhaps never before has there been such a lucid, readable and informative article on the subject addressed to the general, intelligent reader. I know that some work has been going on recently to improve the prose and supply more scholarly references. As of yesterday I am contributing to this effort by going over the writing, editing a few words or sentences here or there to increase readability, although it's already quite good in that respect. I hope that with the collaboration of us all this can be made a good exponent of Wikipedia at its best. --A R King 08:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mayan_languages&oldid=117962335"