Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vowel/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Joelr31 01:03, 22 November 2008 [1].

---

Vowel

Review commentary

Notified Phonetics and Spoken Wikipedia

This article contains very few inline citations, and we promoted way back (in Wikipedia terms) in 2004. It might also need a copyedit, but the main thing it needs is more references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Problems in article layout: 3 1-3 line subsections in "Articulation".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and layout (2). Marskell (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. The article would benefit from more inline citations that specifically attribute the opinions stated to identified experts. (See for example: "In many phonetic treatments, both are considered types of rounding, but some phoneticians do not believe that these are subsets.") Short sections should be merged or expanded. Minor point: it could do with a copy-edit, e.g. both "Pharyngealization" and "Pharyngealisation" are used. DrKiernan (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Remove 1c YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.