Talk:Phla–Pherá languages

Phla–Pherá languages was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 20, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
May 30, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Africa Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A GA Review will be needed soon

This article received its Good Article rating on 29 October 2005 from an editor who hearkened back to a kinder, gentler era when it was not outside of norms to just simply plonk down a Good Article tag for no other reason than WP:ILIKEIT. Alas, the standards for retaining this pretty green trinket have tightened over the year; in the present regime, someone unassociated with writing this article (a reviewer) should examine the article with respect to the good article criteria and, on the various standards cited, expresses up, down, or neutral sentiments, plus an aggregate sentiment, upon which retaining the pretty little trinket relies. By posting this remark here, I'm not suggesting that the article has gone bad or presently fails the criteria, but I am noting the absence of a review that is a hallmark of the present process, and, in the fullness of time, a review should be performed on this article. With the absence of a review, this article is a delisting candidate. Note that, for an editor to delist this article, the due-diligence of a good article review is required so that specific reasons for delisting can be given by the dislisting editor; anything short of that is unfair to editors who contribute to this article regularly and in good faith. Drop any questions about this on my talk page. Take care — Gosgood 13:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal?

Are they tonal languages? Badagnani 02:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Phla-Pherá languages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has major issues, but it might be that they can be fixed. Unfortunately, there are no clear standards for language group articles by WP languages, but at least so much can be said:

There is no infobox.
Most of the necessary references are present, but in Geography and demography some are missing, so from this point of view this article actually meets B class standards, but not GA standards.
The article doesn't contain any information on the typological features of the languages in question, their divergence and convergence.
While the discussion of classificational criteria might be sufficient for an article on a single language, it is far too short for an article that is designed to mainly deal with this issue. Here, not only the proposals but their data basis have to be presented in detail.

I fancy that there might be some more issues, but as at least the third and forth issue are on their own sufficient to delist this article (and I would be inclined to rate it as C class at the moment), I'll leave it at that for the time being to see whether these issues can be addressed. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with these concerns, and since I've never been very happy with the GA idea I don't oppose the article being delisted. As it stands, the article is mainly about the classification and not so much about the typology. This is partly due to the scarce resources that are available. It deserves to be improved, so here's to hoping that someone will come along to do the job. I won't be able to do any more work on it anytime soonish, unfortunately. — mark ✎ 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]