Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romansh language/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=577805463&oldid=577724828].

----

=[[Romansh language]]=

:Nominator(s): Terfili (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria or, if not, want to bring it up to that standard. Terfili (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. A lot of work has been put in here, but I don't think this is really ready for FAC. There's a considerable amount of uncited content, for one thing, and the prose could stand to be tightened throughout. In those respects, this article would benefit from a pass through the GA process and/or a skilled copyedit. There are quite a few reference formatting quibbles, too, but that's sort of a secondary concern at this point. More on point, I don't believe this represents a comprehensive survey of the literature (despite its length). The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies, beginning in 1978, has periodically included bibliographies under the title of "Romansch studies" or "Rheto-romance studies"; the articles cited therein include (among other things) evaluations of syntax, vocabulary, use, and development. But there's a lot out there beyond the primarily German-language books used as sources at current. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I can only agree with the comments above. I think that this article has the potential to be a great FA, but I think there is too much that needs to be fixed for it to be done at FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This nomination does indeed seem premature and I hope, Terfili, that you'll take on board the comments above as a starting point for improvements. In the meantime I'll be archiving it so further work can be done away from the FAC process. I can see that the article had a peer review in 2012, but I'd recommend another being undertaken once improvements have been made. After that (and a minimum of two weeks following the archiving, per FAC instructions) it can be renominated here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

{{FACClosed|archived}} Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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