Talk:Georgian scripts/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some problems: large parts (mainly in the second half) lack citations, (and that's enough to keep it from passing GA in itself), and the script display is problematic - which could be helped by making image files for the script, leaving the Unicode versions to the unicode tables.

The content itself is good, and occasionally excellent, particularly in early sections - I appreciate articles that can handle ambiguity and conflicting claims well, and this article definitely does that.

If the citations can be fixed, this will easily pass GA, and be well on its way to FA. If it can't be fixed in the short term, I'm happy to come back and re-review when it can be; just leave a note on my talk page in that case.

In any case, I'll give a couple days for things to be fixed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adam, thanks for starting the review. Can you please tell me exactly which sections need more references or on which sections should I work on to make it suitable for that criteria? Jaqeli (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

The "Nuskhuri" section (including all subsections) only has one citation in its first paragraph, we need a source for the information, and I'd say at least one citation per paragraph (can be the same citation, of course, just use ref name=)

The "Mkhedruli" section, and all subsections, lack citations.

"Ligatures, abbreviations and calligraphy" needs citations for the descriptions of the last couple scripts.

"Punctuation" is uncited.

"Unicode" is uncited.

"Keyboard layout" is uncited. It needs a cite for "Most keyboards in Georgia are fitted with both Latin and Georgian letters." and probably for the keyboard layout itself, though that could go on the image description page. The image actually appears to be wrong, by the way; according to [1], there are several additional letters and symbols available with the alt-Gr key, as well as two alternate layouts.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources will do; in English or Georgian (Or other languages, but those are most likely.) The sources need only be appropriate for the information -

Thanks. I'll make sure everything there to have their own reference. If such won't be found I'll remove it from content for sure. How long time do I have to correct those? 2-4 days would do it. Jaqeli (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it as much as it was possible. Can you please check it? Jaqeli (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot better, but a couple bits still need cites: Obsolete letters, Additional letters, "Mkhedruli has the most developed calligraphy in comparison with Asomtavruli or Nuskhuri.", first two paragraphs of "Punctuation", the "Unicode" section, and the Georgian keyboard needs fixed still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation's Georgian source covers the first part as well. It is just devided with the image in this case. I'll need some time for the obsolete and additional letters but even though if I found none I don't think it is that big deal I mean it just says how they sound and some corrections can be made or some info without source can be removed. Though their sounds are well known. As for Mkhedruli's complex calligraphy if no source is found that sentence can be changed into just as an example for the Mkhedruli calligraphy. Jaqeli (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some updates. How is it now? Jaqeli (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better, but the Keyboard section is still problematic: it leaves out the Alt-Gr key combinations. I think that needs fixed before it can be promoted. A few places that need citation made explicit, I'll mark those, but it's mostly well-sourced now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On keyboard I found nothing but does it need any source? I mean that's are just undisputed facts that Georgian has 33 letters without capital letters and logically it would need to use the shift key for other letters to type so I think that's not a big problem as the statement does not state anything extraordinary. Don't you agree? Jaqeli (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand the problem. IOn many keyboards - not American ones, but certainly the Icelandic one I use (long story), the Alt-Gr key (the right Alt) is used in combination with certain keys to provide extra symbols. For example, if I press the key left of the Z, I get "<". Shift+that = ">". Alt-Gr+that = "|". Completely different symbol.

Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/goglobal/bb964651.aspx choose the Georgian Qwerty keyboard, and click Alt-Gr. You'll see numerous additional symbols that can be got that way, and these are different to the ones gotten by shift. . None appear on the graphic, meaning the graphic is misleading. WP:Graphics lab can probably help.

In addition, Georgian QWERTY is only one of the possible layouts. There is also a Georgian and Georgian (Ergonomic) on that site. I don't know which is most common; but then, there's no source saying QWERTY is, so I'd say that, at the least, the default Georgian should appear as well. File:KB_Portuguese.svg will give you an idea of the standard way this is presented. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if we just remove that pic from the article and just link that into the "See also"? I have no understanding of keyboard things in details so I can not do anything about it. I will remove it and link it to its article. Is it better now? Jaqeli (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you've just posted above can be used as a source that it is indeed a QWERTY keyboard so I will insert back the image there. Jaqeli (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're quite understanding my point... Never mind, I'll sort this out. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the layout section. I think I'm gonna fix everything very soon. Jaqeli (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now? Jaqeli (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been hoping this would get done. I'm adding a couple ^{[citation needed]} tags. It may well be that they're covered by the next reference, but standard practice in that case is to put the same citation at the end of both paragraphs, so every paragraph ends in a citation. It's because people move text around. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are covered in that source. I've already done the keyboard. Any corrections towards that keyboard? It's better than just an image. Jaqeli (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the keyboard's right. I'll go over it again and double-check. In any case, once all the ^{[citation needed]} tags are resolved, I'm happy to promote Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede needs work:

it's probably too short
begins with describing the Georgian script (in bold) -- yet the article's called 'Georgian alphabet'
we're given the etymology of the Georgian word 'alphabet' -- but what's the relevance? does the word mean any alphabet? the Georgian alphabet? which one?
'... the names of the first two letters of the three Georgian alphabets, which, although they look very different from one another, share the same alphabetical order and letter names' -- 'which' to refer to the alphabets, but could easily be thought to mean the letters the way it's been worded; split into two sentences or rephrase
'The alphabets can be seen mixed in some context ...' -- 2nd mention to some unspecified Georgian alphabets -- what are these alphabets?

— Lfdder (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I actually welcome to comment here? I've no idea. — Lfdder (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfdder: Of course you are. And good points. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: What about now? Jaqeli (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review tomorrow, saw this right before I sleep. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I received on my talk page a message that the nomination for a good article has failed. Is it true? Jaqeli (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The nomination still appears on WP:GAN, so it isn't true. I think the message you received was a side-effect of the article being moved from "Georgian alphabet" to "Georgian scripts" before this GA1 page was moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry, absolutely exhausted because of rehearsals the last two days combined with my dodgy sleep schedule. Should be able to tomorrow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks this will do. Let's promote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]