Fits all featured article criteria IMHO and is a superb resource for people who want to learn more about the IPA itself, and the sounds the symbols represent.
(I admit it's not necessarily the best resource for learning how to decode IPA, but we link to helpful articles from the IPA article. I don't think this is a problem, at the moment.)
Let's promote improve this article to featured status and give a round of applause to all the hard-working contributors. :) If there's anything that needs doing, please mention it! :D --Kjoonlee 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support-looks good. Well done with the prose. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I can't find anything to complain about here.--Danaman5 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment First off, do we really need a paragraph of italicized text, some if it in distracting bold, before the article even starts? Also the prose needs a little work, there's some MoS issues, and other things. Here's a list of issues:
"A third affricate transcription sometimes seen uses the superscript notation for a consonant release, for example" sometimes seen is unnecessary extra wording.
This article is very dense. There are a ton of terms a laymen would have to leave the article to so they can understand it fully. I guess that's alright if every effort has been taken to make it accessible. It's not so long (23KB of prose) that more time couldn't be taken to explain things.
"From time to time, symbols are added, removed, and modified by the International Phonetic Association." From time to time is fairly informal also uses four words and could probably be replaced by one word (periodically might fit).
There are citation needed tags.
Use of contractions ("it should appear correctly, but this hasn't yet been done to all" is one example)
"Although at first the IPA may seem too precise to offer any choice in how to transcribe speech, it is in fact possible to do so with various levels of accuracy." extra words, it seems like you could eliminate "in fact" and "at first" perhaps, also "may seem" sounds weaselly. May seem to who? Do we have a source here? This whole sentence sounds like an informal personal summary.
Is the ref at the Education initiative section covering that entire section? It would seem the first sentence needs a citation. Quadzilla99 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you tell us what sort of explanation would be helpful, please?
I'll have a look if all "glossary" terms are properly linked.
It's sporadic rather than periodical, so I think "from time to time" fits.
There are no citation needed tags as of this writing; there is one, but it's inside a comment.
Contractions have been avoided, except maybe at the tech note at the bottom.
I got rid of "at first" but I think it's a nice not-very-personal summary of the whole paragraph.
I haven't read the citation but it seems it's similar as the point above; the whole paragraph seems to fit together. Thanks for your comments :) --Kjoonlee 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope you're not telling me those are your personal summaries. Anytime you summarize things you need to cite sources, personal summaries are not allowed even if they're based on research. Quadzilla99 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't understand what you meant by "personal summary" but if you mean that it must be properly sourced, I think any textbook on phonetics will mention that IPA transcriptions can be very "narrow" or rather "broad." I'll try to add a reference within 48 hours. (My book is at the office..) --Kjoonlee 07:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In the mean time, I changed it to "Although the IPA offers over a hundred symbols for transcribing speech, it is not necessary to use all relevant symbols at the same time; it is possible transcribe speech with various levels of accuracy." Does that sound better? --Kjoonlee 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, instead of "from time to time", how about intermittently, sporadically, or occasionally? --Kjoonlee 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Support It's well written, and everything else ;D Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I have quite a few concerns about citations ("Other phonetic notation"), OR ("Sounds that have no symbols in the IPA") and missing information (Don't shove UPA in "See also!"). I'll be reviewing this in more details when I'm done with Common Raven, which I've been asked to examine.Circeus 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, those are good points, I think. But what do you mean by missing information, and how is it related with the UPA..? --Kjoonlee 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: This article contains several red links (including on in the "Notes" section). Also, two sections have citation needed templates. Also, the "External Links" section contains 34 links, something which makes Wikipedia rather look more like a collection of links than an encyclopedia. Also, the article is 72 KB long, too long for an FA. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Length alone is not a criteria. We have articles that are quite a bit longer than that, and the tables (which single-handedly takes a lot of sizespace) cannot reasonably be dropped. I definitely agree with your other concerns, though.Circeus 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Red links are not valid objections. The fact that articles associated with this one has nothing to do with the quality of this article. Raul654 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I tdon't think this is even a good article. It is hard to read (both visually and, less so, stylistically). It is a waste of time for people who come to this, the obvious location, to find out how to read a transcription in IPA in Wik. To get this information, a first-time user would probably stumble through the ToC, try the introduction, scroll around and then either give up or check the links at the bottom, where s/he would finally get an okeh list of examples. If we put this up on our front page, we'll scare off a lot of normal people.Kdammers 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The ave. Wik user should also be served - and conveniently. This article is simply not user-friendly. The link is almost hidden (i.e., some-one seeing an IPA transcription in Wik would link to IPA or type in IPA with the , to me, reasonable assumption, that s/he'd find out how to hear or say the word or name s/he came from. So, s/he would reasonably look for some-thing like that. But it first appears way down "after" the article itself). Kdammers 13:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
IPA is currently a redirect. Should it maybe be a disambig, directing the reader to IPA chart for English as well as this article? Or would you want a more obvious link to the chart at the top of this article? kwami 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. The abbreviation "IPA" is far more ambiguous than that, as IPA (disambiguation) shows. I suggest redirecting IPA to IPA (disambiguation) and adding a subsection there for phonetics-related links. --Jtir 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The article now has links to IPA charts in the beginning. I'll see what I can do with the other stuff.. --Kjoonlee 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe lead needs expansion as well, it also need to avoid single sentence, unless the final paragraph possesses a stand alone thought that is best put in one sentence. Quadzilla99 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
What sort of expansion..? Please be more descriptive.. As for avoiding certain constructions, that sounds a bit prescriptive considering styles are ultimately a matter of taste.. --Kjoonlee 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, right off the bat, the lead is choppy and not a compelling summary (have a look at WP:LEAD). Does the lead need to be so heavily referenced? The lead should summarize text from the body of the article, which should be cited in the body. Please see WP:MSH regarding section headings, which are very long here. Massive external link farm needs pruning per WP:EL, WP:NOT. All sources should identify a publisher, as well as author and date when avaiable, for example, what is: Proposal Summary Form for adding new characters to ISO 15924. Accessed April 11, 2007. Publisher? Please check that all sources are complete per WP:CITE/ES. Citation needed tag in the article, and other uncited sections. The article needs work. Lacking in wikilinking, per the tag on another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
Oppose See SandyGeorgia's comments above. In addition, ref #27 is unnecessarily duplicated and whole paragraphs and sections are completely unreferenced. — BQZip01 —talk 04:32, 29 May 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.