Wikipedia:Peer review/Aramaic language/archive1

Aramaic language

This article is mostly my own work with support from a few dedicated Wikipedians. It was briefly a FAC, but I was not quite finished editing at that point. As the article is officially long it would be good to have suggestions on how to make it slightly more compact. However, I am aware that all sorts of rubbish is popularly spouted about Aramaic, and I would hope to keep this article thorough. Gareth Hughes 18:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoa.. learned a lot of new stuff there ;) Good article, but as you say, a bit long. One option might be to spin off 'Old Arameic' and 'Middle Arameic' as seperate articles, linkto them in the appropriate sections and just give a resume in the main article.

The {{neo-aramaic}} box should perhaps be placed at the bottom of the article? I realise that by context it is in the right spot, but visually I feel it's in the wrong spot... I decided not to be bold today thought, since I'm not sure it would be the best thing to move it - I rather leave that to someone more familiar with the subject.

Overall, excelent. Looks - and reads in my opinion - better than most articles I've seen so far on WP:PR. WegianWarrior 10:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I take your point about {{neo-aramaic}}: I think I might sort out the Related topics section to give it a little structure, and include the template in there. I am a little reticent about breaking up the History sections, but I think they do need a good bit of pruning back. Thanks. Gareth Hughes 11:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the template, given some structure to the list of internal links (where the template now resides), pruned the external links and updated the sounds section to use IPA. I'm going to move on to the sections on the history of the language to see if they can be cut back too. Any other comments? Gareth Hughes 18:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Superb. I don't mind the length at all — Wikipedia is not paper. Spinning of Old and Middle Aramaic (like WegianWarrior said) would be the best way to shorten it, IF it needs to be shortened.

I'm missing graphics. One or more maps accompanying the 'Geographic distribution' section would really illuminate the topic. A timeline could be of use too. The reader needs something to go by (more than pretty images) when confronted with so much text. — mark ✎ 11:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mark. I'll have a play around with the timeline idea: I think I can manage that. I don't how to go about adding maps to the article though. Any suggestions? Gareth Hughes 11:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, the history would be accompanied by a series of maps, one for each main section, showing the approximate geographical distribution of the language (and, if possible, some other important languages of the area) at that time. But there are some obvious difficulties — which period to choose, how to fix the borders, etc. At the very least, a map showing the present distribution would be cool, just to visualize the dispersed nature of the various dialects. Refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Cartographers for a list of Wikipedians who could help with maps (I'm listed there also, but I'm desperately trying to limit my contributions to Africa at the moment).

As for the timeline, be sure to check out m:EasyTimeline . — mark ✎ 15:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the timeline into the article. It is rather big, and I've spent so long looking at it that I no longer know whether it works or not. I notice that some areas are crammed, while others are looking rather bald! I'm sure there are other events that can go in there. I'll ask around for another cartographer, thanks. Gareth Hughes 16:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. A few comments:

• It needs a (light) background color to distinguish is more clearly from the text body.
• Is it possible to make it a little less wide?
• Is it possible to reverse the order of events? At present the order is quite the reverse of the text flow, which is a little disorientating. — mark ✎ 19:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll try a light canvas for the timeline. Narrowing it may be tricky, but I'll have a go. As for direction: I wanted the timeline to start at the top rather than the bottom, but I couldn't find anything in the syntax guide that would make the timeline flow in other direction. Any suggestions on that? Sorted the direction with order:reverse, not shown in the syntax help. Gareth Hughes 12:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hah, great! I've given it a little left margin. I'd add the order:reverse to the talk page of m:EasyTimeline fur future reference if I were you. Or thank Erik Zachte (the author) for the feature :).

O, one thing: I think that the New Testament didn't record Aramaic around the year one AD, but at least ca. fourty years later. — mark ✎ 21:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• From what I see, this is very close to being FA worthy. For all language and music related FAC listings, the standard comment now is that they should include sound samples. Ideally they should be in a free compressed format such as Ogg. - Taxman 20:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I was expecting someone to mention sound files! I don't think that I've got the equipment to record sound on my computer. In the grammar section I used a quite artificial mix of Biblical Aramaic and Classical Syriac to show grammar at different stages of development. The question with sound recordings is which dialect to use. Perhaps a few recordings of different dialects might work. Gareth Hughes 12:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I think you may be surprised to find your sound card will record at least passable sound. The only needed thing would be a cheap microphone perhaps. You could otherwise borrow time on someone else's machine or see if your local library has decent recording ability. You may also want to look at Audacity it has good basic sound processing functions and can clean the static from recordings. I think any dialect would be a good start, simply tell which one it is. Then later if it is possible add more in order to show some of the differences. - Taxman 20:47, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

Okay, the timeline is looking nicer now: thanks for the help with it. I cannot remember what the input value for the NT was, but I do think it also got a shift so that everything would fit nicely: I'll check to see what's up there. I'm looking for a few other events to fill in the gaps, and scouring my textbooks for them. One style question: do you think that the timeline would look better with a title (either as a heading or footer), saying something like Timeline of the Aramaic language?

I've got hold of a microphone, and found that I can make rather short, scratchy recordings in WAV format. I'll have a look at Audacity and getting my system set for OGG format. I've had no luck as of yet with cartographers; I'm not entirely sure what to put on a map anyway. Gareth Hughes 14:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second look there is no problem with the dating. I had mistaken the '1st c' (first century) for the first year AD — my fault. First century is of course just fine. — mark ✎ 14:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've sung a little bit of Syriac for you (image:aboun.ogg) and inserted it at an appropriate place in the text (Aramaic language#Middle Syriac). What do you think? Gareth Hughes 22:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fantastic. A really great addition to the article. While map(s) showing the current and/or past distribution of the language would be great, I think this article has improved so much it is worthy of being a FA now, even without them. The maps aren't worth holding it up I'd think since the trouble of defining the areas where it is spoken is pretty difficult. How many people in an area would it take to count, and is that kind of data even available? Anyway, great job. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I think there are some vague maps of the Middle East here and on Commons, but I'm not sure they would help at all. I just managed to contact a couple of cartographers before the wikicrash, but haven't heard back. To be honest, I'm really not sure what I'd be asking for. I'm quite happy with how it looks now. I'll try and do a read through soon to check facts and readability. If you would like to nominate this as a FAC (looks better than a self-nomination), then please go ahead (just be aware of the previous application that stalled, i.e. archive it). Gareth Hughes 18:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nah, a self nom doesn't hurt anything. But in any case I have gone ahead and nominated it. I guess I'll leave this here for a day or so before archiving so people can see that it was nominated at FAC. - Taxman 17:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Taxman for putting the nomination through to FAC, and thanks everyone else for their comments, thoughts and help. Gareth Hughes 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)