Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nabataean Aramaic/archive1

Nabataean Aramaic

Featured article candidates/Nabataean Aramaic/archive1

Nominator(s): Benji man (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Aramaic language used by the Nabataeans. It's a topic I've been researching professionally for the past several years, but I have made sure not to cite my own research or include any original research. At the moment, this article stands as probably the most elaborate Wikipedia article on any Aramaic language. I hope that achieving FA status will give a boost to related topics as well. Finally, this is my first FA nomination, so I apologize in advance for any instances where I don't follow the procedure correctly. Benji man (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Syriac language is longer, at least :) Benji man (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Benji man, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

>Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

File:Cooke's_Text-book_of_North-Semitic_Inscriptions,_Nabataean_and_Palmyrene_01.jpg: what is the author's date of death?

1939. Benji man (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images of inscriptions from countries without freedom of panorama should include an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what kind of tag do you mean? Do you have an example somewhere? Benji man (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Driving by: usually, PD-art-70-3d or PD-art-70: I've gone and added this or the equivalent to all of the photographs of ancient works of art used in the article . UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe—comments

Needs a review for WP:WTW. For example,

avoid "notes" as in "Cantineau notes that it cannot be established whether this also holds for Nabataean" or "Michael O'Connor... noted that loanwords are largely restricted to technical terms" (also try to stick to one tense)
it's not verifiable what he thinks/ knows so "Cantineau is unsure" and "the examples known to Cantineau" should be rephrased

(t · c) buidhe 03:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope to go through the article for other WTW issues soon! Benji man (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments, but it's not considered good form to strike someone else's comment. I wish you good luck with this FAC. (t · c) buidhe 01:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that. Will unstrike them. Benji man (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship

An excellent example of the first-time FA nomination—bags of potential, but a fair few issues of varying magnitude, if you don't mind me saying. Let's start with the stuff that caught my eye first (bearing in mind that I'm not in any way a language specialist). Like always, these are suggestions: feel free to decline with justification

I feel like the lead could be better organised. The article is two thousand six hundred words, not including tables/notes/captions; perhaps an introductory short paragraph, a paragraph on history, and one on phonology/morphology/syntax?

Minor point: shouldn't it be "was" in the first sentence?

Always try to minimise short, stubby sentences or paragraphs, of which there are rather many.
Is it possible to remove the lists and put the whole syntax section in prose? In any case, I can't see any need for subsections in that section—the latter two especially are not nearly long enough to deserve a separate heading. I do find that language articles are always rather MOS:OVERSECTION-heavy.

It's also seemingly dependent on one inline citation, which I think is further justification for the above suggestion.

See MOS:SA for guidance on the See Also section. Specifically, take a note of MOS:NOTSEEALSO: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."
If you use CS1 templates for the Sources section, you should probably use them for the Further Reading section too.
Some images need citations, including the coins, the latter part of the Tayma inscription, and the tracing, as they contain higher analysis.
I am extremely confused about the hatnote at the bottom of the sample texts section.

Let's start with that and see how we get on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Will try to address these soon! Benji man (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]