From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Mixtec writing was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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. |
|
|
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles:
Guidelines— Outline of suggested guidelines and editing conventions
Resources— Selected resources and compendia of Mesoamerican sources and studies
Citations— Bibliography and pre-filled citations for Mesoamerican sources
Journals— Links to selected journals publishing Mesoamerican research, example citation templates
Article listing— Inventory and watchlists of WP:MESO articles and their talk pages (Article Watchlist)—(Talkpage Watchlist)
Worklists— Project worklists and activities
|
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. |
Start |
This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
Mid |
This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
|
|
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] GA fail
The sources that this article uses are unreliable:
- [1] - While this is written by a scholar, it is a self-published website. See here for an explanation of reliable sources.
- [2] - This is also a self-published website. It does not even have the distinction of having been written by a scholar. Note what it says on the "About" page: "Here's the disclaimer: I am not a linguist. It's my hobby (even though it consumes a lot of my time). I've been a computer scientist since the age of 8, and that's what I do to make a living."
- [3] - I can't even find out anything about the author of this single paragraph. The .com doesn't inspire me with confidence, though. This appears to come from some sort of generalized encyclopedia, again not the kind of source we want to use on wikipedia.
- [4] - This looks better, as many of the institute's authors are academics, but it is hard to tell who wrote that particular page.
- The link in footnote 5 does not work.
This page lacks many sections, such as a detailed description of how the writing system works, its connection to the spoken language, its connections to other writing systems, the historical development of the writing system, etc. See Mayan languages and Mayan hieroglyphs for good examples of similar kinds of pages.
The editors of this article need to do a lot more research - most of it will need to take place off of the internet, I'm afraid. Good linguistics studies, written by scholars and published by academic presses, are not available online. A quick search of google scholar reveals that there is plenty of material available - the trouble will be sorting through it all. If you have any questions regarding this review, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 11:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)