Talk:Khmer language/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Speciate (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is my first GA review, so I might be totally wrong. But I looked at the other language articles that have achieved GA status, and this one is not like them. Speciate (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Most of article is sourced via the ref/footnote system, making the couple of inline refs (Sidwell 2009:107) duplicative, jarring and pointless; the reader can click the blue number if they want the source

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Missing comparative tables of words found in many other language articles. Writing system section needs expansion.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No real images. No map, no picture of script on the wall of a temple, only a weird gif.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Sorry, the lack of images is the most pressing issue. Look at other articles and see who made the maps for them, and ask for assistance. Speciate (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons for summarily failing the article seem to be easily fixed issues of style rather than content. The in-line citations can (will) be easily remedied and I will work on looking for images Although images aren't as relevant for an article about a spoken language as they would be for other topics, I agree at least a map should be included. Since there are no real content or stability issues, I believe you should at least put the article on hold and allow editors to implement the suggested improvements instead of simply failing it.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly the notion that "images aren't as relevant for an article about a spoken language". It'll take longer than a week to get a good map made, especially if it includes dialects. The GA rule (heck, even Start-class) requires images without exception, and a map of were a language is spoken graces nearly every article on a major language, even non-GA ones. What about an image of Khmer script like this? Speciate (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a matter of wiki-philosophy and we'll have to agree to to disagree. I don't believe in adding images unless they provide substantive informational value. The distribution range of the language is described in the text. There are examples of Khmer script in the text as well as links to the Khmer script page. Images of these just seem redundant and superfluous in an academic encyclopedia. But if adding images for the sake of having images in an article is what the community wants then I will acquiesce and find/make some to add. (By the way, I don't see anywhere where images are "required without exception". Criteria 6 says "illustrated if possible" by "(b)images relevant to the topic". Vowel tables, consonant tables, etc are suitable for "illustrating" a spoken language.)

Most people are visual learners. Aside from a map which is worth a 1000 words to show where the language and dialects are spoken, there are vowel diagrams. Speciate (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)