Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a221ca263f2aa68e

Jump to content

Talk:Logba language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 years ago by G Purevdorj in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleLogba language was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 20, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Logba language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 20, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

  • The article is not broad in its coverage. There is no grammar section at all (although such research is clearly available) and the phonology section doesn't present the whole phoneme inventory. There is little information on history.
  • The phonology section doesn't provide in-line citations, but that's almost a minor point here.
  • I fancy that this article would have to be enlarged to four times its actual size in order to provide the missing information, thus there is no way to simply fix the issue and retain it as GA for the time being. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply