Comment. You will need some inline citations. -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF) 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content I took from an unpublished script from Bernard Comrie. Citing this wouldn't help much... —N-true 19:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We still need citations for a featured article. Remember, our content (and especially our featured articles) should be verifiable. —Cuiviénen 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. This an extremely good article for a near-dead language. However, it is heavy on lists and tables and light on prose. Also, it focuses overmuch on the speaking of the language and little on the language itself; little is mentioned of the history of the language, its etymology, etc. There are no language articles currently featured to my knowledge, but English language would be a good article to look at for ideas. (Of course, this article should be a lot shorter than that one and many of the topics covered there do not apply here.) Also, as pointed out above, we really do need verifiability for featured articles, so citations are a must. I would refer you to Wikipedia:Peer review. —Cuiviénen 19:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No language articles featured?? :-p — Look at Laal language and Nafaanra language, both featured articles -- none of them fulfill the criteria that you are basing your "oppose" vote on. I think you need to rethink this, or nominate both of those for featured article removal. — Timwi 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually check the FA page, so thank you for doing so for me. However, I would indeed nominate Nafaanra and Laal for FAR if I did not feel that the best is to wait for an FA to appear on the Main Page (unless it is egregiously bad), then FARing it if not major improvements are then made. —Cuiviénen 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object With a cursory glance I can see that Laal language and Nafaanra language have more, though perhaps not sufficient, coverage of the context for the language, and less drilling down to details of the language. For one thing, they both have maps, and given that Tsez seems to be spoken in a limited geographical area, it'd be nice if it had one too. Even Nafaanra has too much detail, and it seems to be more of an overview than Tsez. Really sections on morphology, grammar, etc., should be broken out into separate pages and glossed over in the main article. Also, Tsez is more technical. Try getting some monolingual friends to look at the article and point to sections they think should be simplified. Nevertheless, I'm glad that this material is here. Jun-Dai 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object It looks like a lot of time went into this article and the editors that compiled it were very thorough; that is to be commended. However, there is too much detail for a featured article and not nearly enough in-line citations. The nitty-gritty details on phonology and grammar need to be moved to their own daughter articles and just summarized here in the main article. Sentences like "Tsez grammar was first analyzed by the Georgian linguist Davit Imnaishvili in 1963." and "Currently, a collection of Tsez folklore texts (written in the Mokok dialect) is in production." both need to be cited, we (the readers) can't simply take Wikipedia's word for it, a verifiable source must be provided for all such claims. It's almost there, but not quite. The content is great, it's just the organization and citing that need work.--WilliamThweatt 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article is quite far from FA status for the following reasons:
We have a template for how to construct language articles, and while it's not absolutely mandatory, it's a very well-rounded template that has been around in the current form for quite a while now and is strongly recommended as a basis for how to construct pretty much any article about a living (spoken) language.
There is little or no information on dialects, geographic distribution, history, vocabulary and classification. This is roughly equivalent to half of the content of a well-rounded language article and usually contains the information that is most relevant to those who aren't interested in the fine details of linguistic analysis.
The reference list is almost entirely made up of highly detailed academic works on various aspects of Tsez grammar. They are useful in more detailed sub-articles, but I hope that at least some of them will migrate along with content to the sub-article(s).
We have some very good, and above all, more recent FAs such as Tamil, Aramaic and Swedish that are far better to compare with than English, which has some very specific traits in being a world leading lingua franca. While I don't mean to say that languages spoken only by a few thousand individuals have to have the same kind of coverage the ambition should at least be to approach this level of detail and accuracy. / PeterIsotalo 08:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—needs extensive coverage of the social and historical situation surrounding the language to match the linguistic coverage. Everyking 12:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
