Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Vowel

Vowel

Article is still a featured article.

This article does not meet featured article criteria on the following grounds:

• Unattributed statements: "Some linguists claim..." This statement is blatantly partisan and must have names added if it is true; if it is false it must be removed.
• There are no references. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world and add references. There is no policy that says the reference criteria is not retroactive. It has been more than a year since that requirement was added, and more than a month since Taxman made a request for them.
• The section on vowels in written langauges is inadequate, incomplete, and uncomprehensive: How about Armenian, Burmese, or Greek; for Japanese there are too few characters? Why is there Russian instead of the Cyrillic?
• There is a paragraph on intonation. It says that it depends on syntax. How does this differ from phonation, and if it about syntax, why is it here?
• The section on vowel systems seems to not be comprehensive. Do those 3-vowel systems "spread out" with lots of allophony, or are they really that limited in distribution?

It is quite good an article, but it is most definitely not featured quality. It needs peer review badly. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral. It has some references now, added by User:Nohat. He appears to have used them properly. Remove. No references - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The main complain seems to be a lack of references. Some have been added now. The unattributed statement has been clarified. I will try to research the literature on Abkhaz to find out who made that proposal. If I can find nothing I will remove the (parenthetical) sentence altogether. The other complaints seem like very small nits insufficient to cause an article to be removed from being a featured article, especially considering that the sections discussing those points were added after this article became featured, meaning even without those sections the article was good enough to be considered featured. I note that entire books have been written on this topic, so it's not reasonable to expect that this article will discuss every possible question someone might have about vowels. Nohat 16:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a good article which, while it can still be improved (and is being improved, per above), does not warrant being removed.--Alabamaboy 17:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)