Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quebec French/archive1

Quebec French

Bits of self-nomination. This article is one of the best collection of specificities for Quebec French I've ever seen, including quite a lot of books. It shows just how much different European and Quebec French are: nearly as much as American and British English. --Circeus 22:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Whole-hearted Support. Being a fluent speaker of French and having lived in French Quebec, I can safely say this is an article of outstanding quality. Extensive research was obviously done and the subject is well covered. Phils 22:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like good, thorough work. Everyking 00:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. The one para history section is completely inadequate and the separate history article does not look long enough to warrant a separate article. There are also many single paragraph sections and one sentence paragraphs, which is real bad form. I suggest getting rid of the mini section headings and combine that text into larger sections. This would also reduce the size of the TOC, which is overwhelming ATM. --mav 04:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The history article certainly looks lengthy enough to warrant a separate article to me. Not to mention there's lots of room for expansion. Everyking 04:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • My main point was that the info at the Quebec French was not nearly enough. --mav 05:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. A lot of statements are made with no attempt to make them more accessible to someone not already familiar with the subject. Examples include the article didn't even note Quebec is a province of Canada until I edited it, it still gives no notion of what a oïl language is, where Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean and Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine are and why the dialects there are considered distinct. The lead section seems to intimate they are not even included in Quebec French, while later in the article says they are regional variations. Other than the accessibility and a bit of inconsistency, it looks very good and has a lot of great information. The accessibility doesn't need to be fixed by wholesale changes, just the addition of more inline explanations of terms and concepts to help those not already experts in the subject. Also, the external links used as references need to be properly formatted as in Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Taxman 04:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There were lots of sweeping "superlatives" ("invariably" this or "so very" that) which seemed unjustified, and in any case kept this from reading like an encyclopedia article. Also, what's going on with the "standardization" section? The second paragraph is one huge, tortuous sentence, and it leaves one wondering what is the antecedent for the "effect" which begins the next paragraph. Why no vote? 'cause once I got into all the linguistic symbols in the later sections, i didn't know WHAT was going on at all. And I SPEAK French!Sfahey 21:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Template:French dialects by continent belongs as a footer. The dialects have no chronological order. --Jiang 03:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the alphabetical order is fine. All listings of language varieties across Wikipedia are in alphabetical, not chronological, order AFAIK. I'll see what I can do on the template. --Circeus 16:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Even if minor fixes for form could be made here and there (I'll see what I can do) it has nice, proper substance and is an interresting read. Quite factual (I'm a native speaker myself). - Coren 04:09, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Qualified support. The "Linking" section is completely unexplained (I asked about it on the talk page a while ago and got no response), and the superlatives mentioned above should be toned down. Then I'd be happy to see it as a feature article. - Steverapaport 09:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. The sections on Phonology and phonetics, Morphology, Grammar and syntax are quite complete and were evidently written by people who know their stuff. However, there is no way for me to validate the all this information. There may be innacuracies that only experts in the field could point out and correct. As for the rest of the article, it contains (as mentionned by others) a few "showstoppers". The history section is very small indeed. That is because I wanted to first write the full History of Quebec French article and from that write up a summary (or let someone else do it). The standardization stub doesn't reflect my understanding of the issue, which is very political and still debated at the current. The Regional variations section is full of out of context details and would need to be fixed and expanded greatly before it is presentable. I personnally think we have a lot of work to do still. By the way, for those interested in the subject of Quebec French, there is currently a very interesting series of two articles by Marie-Éva de Villers (author of the Multidictionnaire de la langue française) in Le Devoir. The articles present the results of a study which tried to establish the real norm of Quebec French by comparing all the words used in newspaper articles published in Le Devoir and Le Monde for the year 1997. The second and last article was published today (January 5, 2005). Very interesting read. -- Mathieugp 17:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)