Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Peer review/Ancient Macedonian language

Ancient Macedonian language

I have performed [these edits][1], cited and referenced my edits, and explained the reasons on the talk page, the Users Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) and 3rdAlcove (talk · contribs) have reverted back to original research, while the user Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) has banned me for violating the three-revert rule.

As you can see from the History page, my reverts, are cited and referenced, while theirs are not.

Please take notice, and conduct appropriate action.

The only edit that i have not cited, is the "evolve" term replacing the term "replaced". But the term "replaced" as it stands needs further clarification in the light of the Linguist List classification. It oughts to be made clear that the Koine replaced the Ancient Macedonian on an equal footing that the Koine replaced the Ionic and Doric, which are classified together with the Ancient Macedonian in the Linguist List.

Thank you. --Elampon (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yannismarou

• The prose in the first paragraph of the article is a bit choppy.
• The citations of the third paragraph of the lead should be turned into proper citations. Check if it is necessary to cite there per WP:LEAD. And I am not sure if such an extensive analysis of Pella curse tablet in the lead is necessary or if it could take place in the main body of the article.
• "and Elean, North-West dialect, by exception) bra[3] but Attic phrater and phratra all " ", the form κεβλήπυρις keblēpyris ('red-cap bird') is found, sh" External jumps should be turned into proper citations.
• The article goes straight to "Properties" without introducing the reader to the language's history a bit. The lead is a summary of the whole article (or is supposed to be so), and cannot perform the above role. I also want to point out that this section (like some of the following ones) are not supposed to look so listy. Except for the examples and the tables, an article should also have a proper prose flow. "Classification" is also listy IMO.
• "A. Garrett "has surmised" that Macedonian may at an early stage have been part of a dialect continuum which spanned the ancestor dialects of all south-western Indo-European languages (including Greek), but that it then remained peripheral to later areal processes of convergence which produced Greek proper. He "argues" that under this perspective" Tense consistency.
• "Vladimir I. Georgiev[15] places Greek and Macedonian on a common branch of an IE family tree; this branch he groups together with Phrygian and Armenian to form a grouping termed "Central" Indo-European. Similarly, Eric P. Hamp [16] assumes a common branch of Greek plus Macedonian, with the next larger unit formed together with Armenian and termed "Pontic South Indo-European"." IMO the citations should be at the end of the sentences.
• "Macedonian in Classical sources" is not comprehensive. It gives two-three examples without offering a comprehensive overview of the language's presence in Classical Sources.
• "Adoption of the Attic dialect" consists of one sentence and a longer quote. Problematic section within a problematic structure. Merge or expand and think of the overall structure.
• "Greek Epigraphy: isn't it related to "Macedonian in Classical Sources"? And again it is so listy just like "Hesychius Glossary". I am not sure if these lists belong to this article or if they could constitute a different article named List of Macedonian words in epigraphy.
• "Political controversy" needs some analysis.
• I did not go through the "References" but the layout looks to me problematic. Take advantage of the following templates: Template:cite book, Template:cite web, Template:cite journal, Template:cite news, Template:cite encyclopedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)