Now that it's been encoded, should we mention the Unicode character U+1AC8 COMBINING PLUS SIGN ABOVE ⟨ ◌᫈⟩ in the Diacritics and prosodic notation section as well as in article Phonetic symbols in Unicode#Diacritics? Love - LiliCharlie ( talk) 04:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Reply I don't think so. Fiamh ( talk, contribs) 05:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Reply Superscript diacritics placed before a letter, on the other hand, normally indicate a modification of the onset of the sound (⟨mˀ⟩ glottalized, ⟨ˀm⟩ with a glottal onset)." Of the sources listed for this article, which of these has this information? How do I find it? And if I can't, how do we call it "verifiable"? Delist, since this has been sitting here for months without improvement. For example, labialized ⟨kʷ⟩ may mean either simultaneous and or else with a labialized release. But what about more obscure facts? For example, the passage "Superscript diacritics placed after a letter are ambiguous between simultaneous modification of the sound and phonetic detail at the end of the sound. " are something you could find in any intro linguistics textbook, and I'd be willing to let that slide for the purpose of GA reassessment. Some of the passages missing inline citations, such as the paragraph starting with "For example, while the /p/ sounds of pin and spin are pronounced slightly differently in English. Inline citations are not required for GAs, and that can be verifiable if it's a short article with relatively few sources. The essence of verifiability as I understand it is that the average reader can read any sentence in the article, find the source, and verify the information. Colin M ( talk) 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Reply I don't think I follow your issue about differentiating "official, canonical IPA" and "applications of the IPA" in the current state of the article - but I'd be interested in reading more if you'd like to elaborate. But it might also lead you to hold the article to higher standards than an average reader (or reviewer) would. On the one hand, that gives you a better ability than me to sniff out factually questionable claims or missing coverage. You clearly have a lot of expertise on this topic. The content you showed that you had removed for being unsourced or tagged with don't seem like they belong to one of the categories of statements for which the WP:GACR require inline citations. Something like this for example is a fine correction, but it's quite a small detail - the 'wrongness' of the previous wording isn't such that it would affect my thinking about GA status. It seems understandable that a fairly prominent article like this would get some noisy contributions from time to time, but the diffs you linked don't seem like major issues. It may have deserved GA in 2006 when it became one, but I don't think it meets the standards we now expect from GAs. IMHO it does a poor job particularly of differentiating what is the official, canonical IPA as set out by the International Phonetic Association and what are applications of the IPA for example, and /slashes/ are the only enclosing symbols recognized by the IPA, but the article only distinguishes them and other conventions as "principal" and "less common", with hardly any citation. I have identified and tagged, removed or corrected some OR and inaccuracies from time to time, but problems persist. There are long chunks of unreferenced sentences. AIR corn (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Reply Since this has not been rectified and this has been open for over 4 months I am going to delist it. Most recent review Result: Delist I agree with Colins position that not everything in a GA needs to be cited, but Fiamh has acknowledged this and given an example of something which needs a citation.International Phonetic Alphabet Article ( edit | visual edit | history) This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Wikipedia 1.0 Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team Template:WP1.0 Version 1.0 articles This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: This article has been rated as B-Class by the WikiProject Vital Articles. International Phonetic Alphabet has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. International Phonetic Alphabet was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |