Object. The Some Publications section needs to be renamed and probably split out as per the naming standards at Wikipedia:Citing sources to make it clear which of the listed publications, if any, are used as references. Because of this issue, the article's references are questionable at best. In addition, the artice has no form of inline citations. The article also needs to do a better job defining its terms. An example of this is the term (abbreviation?) OAU which is used serveral times but not defined. --Allen3talk22:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Following everyone else above about references and inline citations. The lead also needs to made larger. AndyZ00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding references noted. Please bear in mind that much of this is too old to be contemporary to today's Internet, and too new to be studied as a 'dead language' by scholars. Books have been written, but they make poor reference targets, as they are verifiable by only a few. I think the lead section succinctly summarises the subject. Wizzy…☎18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, refs should be tied directly to the article using ref/note system. If the pubs listed are old, find newer ones.Rlevse18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gt 11:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)