Talk:Toki Pona/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JerrySa1 (talk · contribs) 23:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming this article for review. Will begin if/when nominator returns to wikipedia, in which case I recommend he ping me in case I forget about this. Jerry (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@JerrySa1: Thank you for expressing the willingness to review the article. I am prepared to hear your comments and make any further improvements suggested in them. Ddrahoslav (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

All right, I haven't done a thorough read of the article yet, but so far I have come across a couple of problems which can be fixed pretty easily. Link any statements that have a citation needed tag. I would also recommend removing any non-crucial references from the lead section, since that clutters up the section. Besides that, the points being made should theoretically also be mentioned in the article anyways, so over-referencing is discouraged (13 is probably too much, these references could be better used elsewhere in the article). Besides that of course, there is the problem that much of the article is based on original sources, but this isn't a deal-breaker for me seeing how hard it is to get sources for such an article in the first place. Overall, it has potential though, so while it isn't GA material yet, it isn't so far away to be worth failing. After all, seeing how this has been failed several times, this article does not need to go through that again. That's it for now, I'll add more later, but I am rather busy right now. Jerry (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisions so far are looking good. Though, taking another look at the references, there is too much in the way of primary sources for myself. I get that it is hard to get information on the topic, though I would try limiting things as much as possible. I think any type of fandom source should be removed, though. Like wikipedia, anyone can edit that site, and wikis are never used as sources themselves. Medium is somewhat similar, it's a blog site which allows anyone to make their own content. The article itself at least seems professionaly made, so I am not sure whether or not it should be completely removed. Seeing how other reliable sources back up its statement, it isn't too important to remove.

In any case, try finding secondary sources, though if you can't, use your own discretion on whether to remove the parts of the article which use it as a source. Apologies for not responding earlier.Jerry (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to this. I understand the issue with primary sources and will try to resolve it as reasonably as possible. Ddrahoslav (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have done quite a few edits now. I was able to find secondary sources for some of the claims but also had to resort to removing some of them. Would you please let me know what you think about the article in its current state? Ddrahoslav (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, though I did some copy-edits of my own in some parts of the article I thought needed fixing. While I am not much of a linguist, I do have some casual knowledge of the subject, so as far as I can tell it is accurate. However, the last sentences of each of those sections need sources. Jerry (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

All right, I am not quite sure whether or not using Primary Sources when it comes to how the language itself works should be allowed when it comes to language articles. In my opinion, the article as it is uses Original Resources when absolutely needed, but a couple of people I've asked disagreed and called the notability of the article into question.

Despite that I will ✓ Pass this article seeing the circumstances.Jerry (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I just did a quick review. Sorry I haven't had the time to look at it earlier (I still don't), because a thorough review requires the checking of every single footnote. In any case, a lot has been improved since I did my first review, that's clear. Compliments to Ddrahoslav for that! My original problem with the article was that it was too obviously written from the point of view from a Toki Pona supporter who wants to persuade the reader, and less directed at giving neutral information, but that problem has largely been solved now. Anyway, I'm not going to contest the GA status, but I do still have a few issues that require clarification.

First of all, there's the issue of the number of speakers. The infobox mentions "several thousands" in 2015 and points to an article on a blog that says: "Apparently Toki Pona is now utilized by thousands of people around the world". Apart from the fact that a blog is not exactly the most reliable source, the word "apparently" makes it clear that the author hasn't done any serious research here and it's just hearsay. I've never believed that number myself, because I think I know where it comes from: the membership of the Facebook group Sitelen (currently 4096 members, so probably some 2000-3000 members in 2015). But let's be honest: joining a Facebook group is just a matter of one click, and it doesn't immediately make a person a user. Usually in groups like this one, no more than some of 5–10% of the members ever write more than a single message, a far larger number of members probably not even being aware of ever having joined it. If anything, you might call them "users, sympathizers and occasional bystanders".

Amikumu does not strike me as a particularly reliable source either. I mean, 7 native speakers of Toki Pona? Come on! But then, I also see people there claiming to be native speakers of Latin, Ancient Hebrew, Old English, Middle High German, Ancient Egyptian, Phoenician, Primitive Irish, Old Church Slavonic, Volapük, Lojban, Lingua Franca Nova, Slovio and even Dothraki. That kind of undermines the credibility. Besides, of these ca. 500 Toki Pona users, 325 are listed as beginners, which probably means that most of them never wrote a single word in Toki Pona. Look, I'm not trying to undermine Toki Pona here, neither am I saying that these numbers are worthless. But you have to take them for what they are worth; using them as proof that Toki Pona has thousands of users is simply misleading and undermines the reliability of the entire article.

Second thing, the writing systems. What I miss here is an explanation. What is their purpose? Are they really used and/or recommended or are they just Spielerei? How does a complicated thing like sitelen sitelen match the language's overall simplicity? And what does it mean that "the community has adapted other scripts to write Toki Pona"? Is that the result of a democratic decision or are these just initiatives by individuals?

For the rest, this might be a matter of taste, but in my opinion, the article is way too heavy on footnotes. You don't need to add a footnote to virtually every sentence, because the only effect is that the references section becomes a forest of rather useless information. You don't have to add a reference when you are stating the obvious (for example, that Esperanto bona ultimately comes from Latin bonus). Furthermore, I still believe the article leans too much on primary sources. Mind, I'm not questioning the notability of Toki Pona, nor the validity of the information, but serious research by independent researchers is kind of scarcely represented here.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to Jerry for their help but also to IJzeren Jan for additional comments. I am working on resolving them. Ddrahoslav (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJzeren Jan: Thank you for that actually, this article probably deserved a review from someone more knowledgeable on languages, which I am not. Jerry (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)