Talk:Mythical origins of language/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about this article primarily related to the references. Ref [1] is Genesis 11 from the Bible. Per WP:PSTS primary sources are not encouraged as references. Religious scripture is considered a primary source. The formatting of the reference is also lacking per WP:CITE, there needs to be a publisher, accessdate, and author (if one exists). Refs 1,2,5,7,9,10,13,14, and 17 are lacking at least a publisher and accessdate. Ref [7] is a dead link and needs to be fixed.

Regarding the Genesis reference, it references the story of Genesis, it does not say anything about its validity as a theory on the origins of language. Primary sources may not be encouraged, but in this case as referencing the text of the story I think it is ok. - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other references I'll try and take care of. - Francis Tyers · 09:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Some of the references I'm not happy about in terms of reliability. But seeing as they are serving to reference stories and not theories, I'm ok with leaving them for now. This stuff is quite difficult to research, and although the people who wrote the pages linked have developed some crazy theories, I can't see them just making up stories. I've marked them with "find a better reference". - Francis Tyers · 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not developed properly either. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to be a summary of the entire article. I do not see mention of the various continent/cultural mythologies in the lead, which is the heart of the article.

I've added a sentence "This article gives an overview of these myths from various cultures around the world." - Francis Tyers · 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is close though I can't keep it as is. Please address these issues in the next week and I will be happy to keep it. I will hold it for now pending work. H1nkles (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, the article has improved as a result, particularly in the reference section. - Francis Tyers · 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done the article checks out and I'm thankful that you put the work into it. I understand that the referencing and research is difficult on a subject such as this. The article is certainly GA. H1nkles (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) - Francis Tyers · 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]