Wikipedia:Peer review/Albanian language/archive1

Albanian language

This article has undergone vast improvement over the last few days and I would like some feedback on what other editors feel should be improved, what is lacking in clarity, is the article sufficiently NPOV etc. The current layout of the article is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Language Template, but this article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Pages using the template needing attention and has been there, well... since forever. Any sugestions that could help it be removed from the *yuk* list are welcome. Rex^(talk) 21:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs:

more on contacts with other languages, maybe some statistics about how many words are "native" and how many borrowed and from where.
the history is still sketchy.
the comparison table is not very concludent: a better table should include Latin, Sanskrit, Proto-Slavic/Old Slavonic, Gothic/Old Germanic and Old Norse, Ancient Greek, some old Iranian language, Armenian and Lithuanian. A table with these languages would be very useful for showing its affiliation (Satem, etc) A reconstruction of the words in Albanian as they looked 2000 years ago would be great, but probably harder to find! The non-Indo-European languages certainly don't belong in there.
more details on grammar -- there's almost nothing on the verb system.
phonetical changes, from Indo-European until the Roman times, from the Roman times to Common Albanian and the ones made by each dialect -- this would require reading some more scientific studies :-)
writing system -- maybe some pictures with documents in Greek and Arabic scripts. bogdan | ^Talk 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK they'll all be seen to (easier said than done). Bear in mind however that Latin, Armenian, Lithuanian and Sanskrit are on the table. Rex^(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with bogdan about the history, but that's about it. Other than that, I'd say it needs fewer tables and lists and less detail and more general information. Here are my recommendations:

Ditch the lexicon tables. It doesn't belong under "Classification" to begin with and that many examples is just overly detailed. A handful (as in no more than 3-4) of in-prose examples is more than enough. That goes for the comparison table of Tosk and Gheg, too. Again, general information is needed.
Remove the orthographically oriented letter-to-sound table in the phonology section. One for consonants and one for vowels is enough. Please keep the tables limited to phonemes. Describe allophones in prose.
The grammar section is mostly just a description of how nouns and verbs are declined. This is not particularly useful in an encyclopedia. Please describe what makes Albanian grammar distinctive. Describe both similarities and differences compared to (all) other languages, related and unrelated.
Remove the "Examples" altogether. Neither "hello", "good bye" nor "where's the bathroom?" is enlightening to explain the language. Sounds samples are good, but do try to record either a poem or excerpt from well-known (and preferably well-loved) Albanian prose or of minimal pairs. Tourist phrases belong in guide books.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]