Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Levantine Arabic/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2022 [1].

Levantine Arabic edit

Nominator(s): A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Levantine Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in the Levant. (PR1, Sept 2021 / GA1, Dec 2021 / DYK, Dec 2021 / PR2, March 2022) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are the only 2 FA about a spoken language: Nafaanra and Nahuatl. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

File:Modern Levant.PNG — file description states the accuracy is disputed
File:Arabic Dialects.svg — The image description should include sources for the info displayed on the map
File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg — I don't think this meets the non-free copyright criteria for use in this article, especially #1 and #8.
Other images look fine. I don't see any sound files in the article, but if there are any they have not been evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modern Levant.PNG: I don't see any dispute so removed that information in the file description. Otherwise we could use File:The Levant 3.png (sourced) or File:Levant (orthographic projection).png

File:Arabic Dialects.svg: I don't think we can find sources for such a map, I removed it.

File:Lebnaan Newspaper issue 686.jpg: I don't know enough about non-free copyright criteria, let me know if I have to remove it A455bcd9 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For 3, I went ahead and removed it. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of duplicate links. You can detect them using User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed most of them. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: for "Arabic Dialects.svg", I've just realized that the image was present in Schmitt, Genevieve A. (2019). "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion". In Brunn, Stanley D.; Kehrein, Roland (eds.). Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer. p. 1385. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_79. ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6. as "Fig. 1 Major dialects of Arabic, by region. (Open source)". Could this be used as a source, a posteriori? (or at least a validation by a scholar that the information in the image is reliable) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. (t · c) buidhe 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Oppose at this time. There is considerable citation cleanup needed: many citations are incomplete and the formatting is inconsistent. There are also some issues with article structure, with a very long TOC, short and choppy subsections, and a significant number of one-sentence paragraphs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please provide examples of incomplete citations? I checked during the last peer review and I thought it was okay. Same question regarding formatting. I'm a bit surprised because I only used the automatic citation tool in VisualEditor, and as it auto-formats, I guessed the resulting formatting would be consistent. Chris Capoccia also reformatted refs and used citation bot cleanup. Regarding the other points: I'll improve that later. A455bcd9 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately automated tools don't necessarily ensure consistency. Some samples of issues (not a full list):

Some references use the {{citation}} template, while others use cite templates ({{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc) - this will produce output that looks different. Also some references use no template at all, eg 278
Many books are missing publisher - eg footnotes 3, 8, 102, 126, and others
Some books include publication location (eg 27) while others do not (eg 123). This is an optional parameter, so you should decide to include or not include and then do that consistently.
When someone translates a work, they should be credited using a translator parameter rather than an author parameter in the citation template
Citations should generally include at least one of work or publisher - eg 155 has neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting translators is optional, I believe, but if you are doing it, I would advise to use the translator parameter as Nikkimaria suggests. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced {{citation}} templates, added publishers where missing in {{cite book}}, removed all "publication-place" and "location", added translators, added website for 155, and a template for 278 (I think it was the only ref without a template). Do you think citations are okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is now way shorter (from ~60 sections and first-level subsections to ~40) and I removed many one-sentence paragraphs and "short and choppy subsections". I think the "Grammar" section is the only one where there may still be some work to do. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely work needed in Grammar, but not only that. For example, presently the Vocabulary section is only six paragraphs, and yet it has two subsections. With regards to citations, thank you for addressing the specific examples raised, but as noted that wasn't a comprehensive list of issues. For example, footnotes 147 and 148 are both journal references but look quite different; 267 includes "www" in the domain but 265 does not; 123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect. Some of these are simply a matter of consistency. But both cases need working through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed these issues. I understand that your list wasn't comprehensive, so I tried to address other issues I identified. Besides the Grammar section, is there still some work needed? If so, can I find a comprehensive checklist somewhere with the different criteria (such as "www" in the domain, credit platform with via, etc.) so that I don't bother you? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm not aware of a comprehensive checklist. WP:CITEHOW and the documentation for the templates will give you some of the information, but a lot of the time it's a matter of manually comparing citations to see where they differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I used the Wikipedia citation bot, not really helpful... I looked at WP:CITEHOW and improved several citations. Is it okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still problems unfortunately. More examples: footnote 165 is a harv error; some book references include locations while others don't; some journals include publishers while others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh sorry... "some book references include locations while others don't": which book references? There was one that I forgot (Cambridge, just removed) but otherwise the only 6 "location=" used are for conferences (Miyazaki, Istanbul, Doha, Brasov) as it seems to be expected by Template:Cite conference. I added the three missing publishers for journals. I think/hope we should be good now... A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you wrote: "123 lists ProQuest as a publisher, but in 20 the platform is credited using |via= instead. Some of these are errors: 20 is the correct way of treating platform, 123 is incorrect." And I initially changed from "publisher=" to "via=" for this reference. However I double-checked and the document says: "Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author." So should I change back to "publisher=ProQuest"? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - ProQuest is publishing a reproduction, but the thesis itself is originally published by the university. |via= is the more appropriate position for ProQuest in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, I worked on the citations, could you please tell me if they're okay now? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely much better than when we started, but there are still inconsistencies. For example, some references to Ethnologue use regular {{cite web}} templates while others use a specialty template with different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: thanks. Template:Ethnologue25 only works for languages. The only three references to Ethnologue using cite web are links to Ethnologue's maps. (I changed one) Is that really an issue? If so, what would you recommend? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{cite web}} for all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Anything else? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Let me know if citations are okay now. I also worked on the TOC and one-sentence paragraphs. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. I note your withdrawal of your oppose. Does that mean that the source review is a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - I did not do a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch edit

To stay on the topic of sourcing, one inconsistency I'm seeing is that sometimes sources are cited with a specific page and sometimes not, e.g. ref 41, 107, 126. I am aware that it would be a huge job to fix that, but alas consistency is part of the FACR. Also is there any "systematic" reason why some sources are cited in "Sources" and referenced through {{sfn}} templates while others are cited directly in the "references"? JBchrch talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JBchrch:,
I checked all sources and added missing page numbers. I think the only sources cited without pages now are:
- Online news articles (for which there's no page, e.g. this one or that one),
- Articles from the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics that are available online (e.g. here) without pagination,
- "An illusionary power of seduction?" which is also an online journal, so there's no pages.
Is it okay now? (I think so)

Sources in "Sources" using sfn: long books cited several times at different pages in the article, and also the main references about Levantine Arabic in general. Sources directly in "References": shorter articles (often only cited once and about a specific point). Does this make sense? What are the conventions here? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Thanks -- are you sure you've checked all of them? I still see that ref 104, 108 and 246, for instance, are quoted "in bulk". As for the "Sources"/"References" thing, there is no standard practice, since Wikipedia doesn't mandate a specific citation style, it just has to be consistent. One additional comment as I looked at the article once more: I see that sometimes you list the day-month-year of publication as its publication date, and sometimes only the year (e.g. Brustad & Zuniga 2019, Al Masri 2015). I think listing the year is sufficient, and it will also make it consistent. JBchrch talk 14:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: I thought the only issue was consistency in terms of appearance (some references with p= or pp=, others without => now they all have this parameter, with a few exceptions I explained). But now I understand that it's not only about visual appearance but also about how accurate each page mention is and you would like each reference to specifically mention the exact page(s) related to the sentence they're attached to. So if it's a 10-page article and the information needed appears on page 5 then you want p=5 instead of pp=1-10. Am I correct? From WP:PAGENUM, I understood that specific page numbers were only required when citing "lengthy" sources. Should I still do it?

Date format: I've just converted all dates to year in the "Sources" section. But do you think I should do that in "References" as well? Including for news articles? And for journals (for which the format is most likely Month Date)? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Your understanding of my suggestion is correct. Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the page numbers were cited every time. Also, pay attention to the fact that sometimes there are lengthy works that are cited without a specific page number, such as ref 41. About dates: the "classical" way of doing things is to keep day+month+year for news articles, but to mention only the year for scholarly articles (unless adding the month [and the day] is the only way to individualize the article in question). JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: OK so I changed all dates to "year only" for scholarly articles (cite book, cite journal, and cite conference) and kept day+month+year for cite news and cite web (when available).

For the page numbers, just to be clear (before starting what may be a huge task haha), do you mean Given PAGENUM, you can probably attempt to get this through FAC without mentioning [specific] page numbers each time, but you would have an easier time getting the designation if the [specific] page numbers were cited every time.? I so, then I'll make page numbers more specific tomorrow or this weekend 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started adding more specific page numbers (almost done...), so never mind my question :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Apologies for the late answer. And yes, just in case, yes that was what I meant :). Good luck this work! JBchrch talk 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch no worries! I've actually just finished. I hope it's okay now :) Please let me know if there are still some issues... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 It looks like things have improved indeed, but I will take a closer look later. Something you could double-check is whether all the book titles are correctly capitalized. For instance, ref 125 and 129 should have more capitals per their "official" titles [2][3]. JBchrch talk 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: it's a never ending task haha! Thanks, I fixed those and all the others I identified. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Yes it is 😊. The way I like to think about it is that the article has to be "ready for the printing press" which supposes that Wiki editors have to do the work typically done by publishers, editors and copyrights "in real life". JBchrch talk 18:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: I have so much respect for all the contributors who improved articles to FA status now... Anyway I think the article is "ready for the printing press" (when it comes to citations at least). But you'll maybe tell me there's yet another point to improve 😅 A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch Were you able to take a closer look at the citations? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Unfortunately, I was not able to find enough time to do so. I will now go on a wikibreak, so sadly I will not be able to work on this soon. Best of luck! JBchrch talk 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch, no worries, thanks for your feedback and enjoy your break :) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JBchrch: hi, if by any chance you're back from your wikibreak (otherwise, never mind :) ), please let me know if the citations are now okay (esp. the ones without page numbers). A455bcd9 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, A455bcd9, thanks for your message. I'm indeed off my wikibreak but unfortunately I will not have the time to take a look a the citation at the moment, at least until the next week-end. I hope that in the meantime perhaps someone is able to do a proper source review. I'm still watchilisting this page, so following how it goes. JBchrch talk 14:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Joseph edit

Very nice and comprehensive article with useful maps and good references. Thanks for your efforts.--Joseph (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next two or three days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to understand: how does the process work? Because my natural reaction if you archive this nomination, would be to nominate it again right after as there's only one "Oppose" based on grounds that I consider (maybe wrongly) fixed. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the nomination is archived, you're not able to renominate for at least two weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks!

@Gog the Mild: Nikkimari has just removed their "oppose" and JBchrch (who did not formally oppose as far as I understand) will go on a wikibreak. Does this still mean that this nomination will be closed? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If in two or three days it hasn't attracted a couple of substantial general reviews, or at least the start(s) thereof, archiving will probably happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Based on the past 3 weeks with 0 general reviews, I guess it's unlikely that there will be "a couple of substantial general reviews" in the next ~48h. So it's likely that you will archive this nomination. And I'll then reopen it 2 weeks later. And potentially this can go on forever? Why would there be more reviewers in 2 weeks when the nomination will be back on the top of the pile (vs being at the bottom in "Older nominations" where I thought people would have an incentive to reduce the backlog)? I'm just curious because I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this process. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logic? This is FAC. Yes, you could keep that up forever. Though it gets old pretty fast. Alternatively, you could ask me or someone who may have a constructive suggestion for thoughts on how a nominator might attract reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would love to know how to attract reviewers, what would you recommend? (by the way, I asked a few users with experience in languages/linguistics for a review in the past, without much success, such as Jeppiz, Greyshark09, Chris Capoccia, kwami, delldot, Casliber, Maunus, Mo-Al, and just before your answer I asked Austronesier).

[I assumed in my previous message—and I was maybe wrong—that it would be impossible to attract two or three reviewers in the next 48/72 hours to conduct a general review. That's why I asked about the reasoning for the FAC process to be follow such a procedure.] A455bcd9 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning, in so far as there is any, is that if you haven't attracted any/several supports in three weeks, it will probably take you quite a while/forever to gain a consensus for promotion. And rather than clutter up the nominations list, it would be better to go away and think about it.

The accepted wisdom that an editor is well advised to to review a dozen or twenty FACs prior to their own first nomination. It gives them a real grasp of what is needed in an article and the resulting lack of major issues makes FAC regulars more likely to consider reviewing it. While there is no formal quid pro quo, it also generates good will among the FAC regulars and makes them more likely to be sympathetic when they see your name on the list of nominators.

PR can have a similar effect, and reviewers of an article at PR can frequently be cajoled into following up with one at FAC. As you have identified, editors with an interest in a broad area may respond to a neutrally phrased request - perhaps on their talk page. A similar approach may work with editors who are frequent FAC reviewers even if they have no immediately apparent history of reviewing in an article's area.

You will no doubt have identified some potential overlap between the suggestions above. Does any of this help? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning in a situation where there's at least one oppose and no or low support, but here there's nothing on both sides, that's why the process surprises me. But I accept it as it is, of course.

As you say, it is what it is. And, IMO, it works passably well.

"The accepted wisdom that an editor is well advised to to review a dozen or twenty FACs prior to their own first nomination.": would be great to mention this on WP:FAC. I did some FAC reviews (Pronunciation of GIF, Jews in Hong Kong, Armenian genocide) but it didn't help because I still don't know what it takes to be a FA. (not being a native English speaker makes me a bit reluctant to review other people's prose as well...)

I wouldn't worry about inexperience, or perceived weaknesses. Just get stuck in. If necessary, specify what you are assessing against, or where you feel less than wholly sure. Most nominators will let you know if they feel you are in error. (Just mention serial commas on one of mine!)

After their GA review, Cerebellum said "I think it has a good shot at FA :)"; in their DYK review (approved by Theleekycauldron), David Eppstein wrote "Very thoroughly sourced, easily meeting the additional sourcing requirements of DYK over GA."; and buidhe started their PR (before FA) with "Article looks promising". I understood these various messages as a "lack of major issues". But reading your message I feel like you imply that there are major issues in the current version in the article and that this is the reason why no one has yet started to review it. Did I misunderstand you?

Yes. I was speaking generally. I have skimmed the lead and read none of the main article.

I'm just asking these questions because it's my first FAC and I'm a bit puzzled and discouraged by the process.

Oh yay. I remember my first couple of FACs. FAC is a high level, and so FAC is a tough process, and can seem brutal. And not having a working ACR system in most areas means there is a chasm in level from GAN. All I can say is that virtually everybody in the process wants articles to be promoted. And that the poor response for this one is a little disappointing; possibly the length and/or the specialist area and/or its esoteric nature have deterred people. Or it may just be one of those things.

What does ACR mean? It's true that the gap between GAN and FAC seems huge. Anyway, thanks for your detailed answers (to my annoying questions 😅). Now back to work... A455bcd9 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left another message on all users who reviewed the article in the past (2 PRs + GA). As I mentioned above, I contacted in the past several editors with a broad interest in languages/linguistics/the Levant/the Arab world without much success. I didn't want to contact them again for this FAC nomination because I didn't want to "spam" them. Should I still do it? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, but if it were me, I would. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, will do! In addition to Cas Liber who has started a review below, Cerebellum will review it and Austronesier said they would try to review as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted again all editors who at some point contributed to the article and all Levantine speakers. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I contacted a total of 63 active contributors, including all Levantine speakers and all main contributors to Levantine Arabic and related subjects (subdialects, other Arabic varieties, Modern Standard Arabic, ancient Arabic languages, etc.). I also announced the FAC at various projects. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: regarding the process, do we need more participants? (in that case I could try to ping again some of the people I contacted) Or is it more about getting support from existing participants? (esp. Cas Liber? as the buidhe and Cerebellum said they didn't feel qualified to support) A455bcd9 (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have sufficient. Given the number of reviewers currently looking at the article I would be surprised if they were not to generate sufficient input for a closing decision to be reached. However, as this is your first FAC, it will also need the citations to be spot checked for source to text fidelity. I have requested this at the top of the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks a lot for your help! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I guess we have enough supports now. As we're waiting for the source review and first timer's sourcing spot check, is there anything I could do in the meantime to make sure they are a success? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can think of. Pray? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha this is unfortunately the answer I was expecting! I'll pray then... A455bcd9 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild, can anyone do a source review (and/or first timer's source spot check) and what's the process? (as asked by Austronesier here). A455bcd9 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request for both at the head of the FAC talk page a week ago. This gives some idea of what needs checking for a source review. Looking at source reviews for other nominations should also help. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, but not really, there is something wrong with the need for many comments to promote an article. That would mean that ceteris paribus articles from esoteric fields have a lower chance of being promoted even if somebody, like A455bcd9, would bring them up to par, and that sounds not fair. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waahaha. Debresser, Your point is on the money in theory, but in practice FAC somehow seems to not work like that. Ie the last eight FACs promoted have been Tom Eastick, First homosexual movement, Jubilee coinage, Clonmacnoise Crozier, Pronunciation of GIF, Pan Am Flight 7, Woodleigh MRT station and Nizar ibn al-Mustansir. They have all made it through the process and I struggle to imagine a more esoteric set of fields. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Have looked at some of this while on a plane...resuming reading and jotting notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levantine does not descend from Classical Arabic: they both descend from an unattested common ancestor called Proto-Arabic. - this sounds like you're labouring the point. Would drop the first bit as it means nothing to most readers.
- Most Arabs and Arabic-speakers think/believe that Levantine dialects descend from Classical Arabic, that's why I thought it would make sense to mention this information in the lead. But because Classical Arabic isn't mentioned before I deleted the whole sentence. A455bcd9 (talk)
  - My understanding is that the numerous varieties of spoken Arabic technically descend from Old Hijazi Arabic. The term Proto-Arabic is probably too ambiguous to be of much use – worse, it typically refers to the most recent common ancestor not of the modern, but of the ancient varieties (which are attested in ancient inscriptions and familiar only to experts). While Classical Arabic is technically not identical with Old Hijazi (c. 1st to 7th centuries), but a standardised literary prestige register between the 7th and 9th centuries – nor, of course, with Old Arabic (which covers various ancient regional dialects of the Arabian Peninsula which later went extinct) nor Proto-Arabic (which is dated to the pre-Christian era) –, the distinction between Old Hijazi and Classical Arabic is fairly subtle, as are questions about chronology, and I can imagine that the usage between scholars is not entirely consistent (but then, I'm not an Arabist). When you try to reconstruct the most recent common ancestor of all the modern spoken Arabic varieties, you probably get something very much like Classical Arabic, so it's not that wrong – not as wrong as, for example, to claim that all North Germanic dialects descend from Old Icelandic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Florian. According to Al-Jallad 2020a: "In southwest Arabia, some varieties appear to descend directly from Proto-Arabic rather than through the medium of Old Ḥigāzī and have, overall, not converged with major strands of modern Arabic, such as the Rigāl Almaʿ or the Fayfi vernacular." So it may not be the case that "the numerous varieties of spoken Arabic technically descend from Old Hijazi Arabic". And yes, unfortunately, the terminology isn't consistent between scholars... And there's no consensus on most questions. I tried to sum up the situation in Classification of Arabic languages. The term "Classical Arabic" itself isn't clear as explained by Al-Jallad: "Classical Arabic is a vague umbrella term used to cover a wide variety of sources, most often the language documented by the Arabic Grammarians, the reading traditions of the Qur’an, the pre-Islamic Odes, and texts written in the Islamic period. These sources are not homogenous and can vary significantly over time and place. As such Classical Arabic is not a single variety of the Arabic language but should rather be construed as a blanket definition covering what is prescriptively possible in written Arabic in pre-modern times." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Florian Blaschke, Birnstiel writes in Classical Arabic that: "Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic." And later: "Classical Arabic crystallized consequently as a unifying literary standard from the (semi-)conscious efforts of the grammarians in evaluating the different materials as well as the (performative-ritual, not necessarily spoken) language of certain Bedouins." So I don't think that the consensus today is that When you try to reconstruct the most recent common ancestor of all the modern spoken Arabic varieties, you probably get something very much like Classical Arabic. (but again, it's not super clear) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's news to me that some marginal Arabic varieties in Arabia are thought to be not derivable from Old Hijazi. (Coincidentally, I looked at Razihi and Fayfi recently and thought that they do not look like they descend from Old South Arabian, nor even like they have a strong OSA substratum, already from the phonetics: no ejectives, no laterals, like you might expect, but the usual pharyngealised and dental realisations known from varieties of Arabic. As such, I agree at least that they seem to be some kind of Arabic.) However, we're talking about Levantine Arabic here, and I know of no particular reason (historical or linguistic) why it should not be descended from Old Hijazi (with an Aramaic substratum). For all we know, the Levant was still Aramaic-speaking in the 7th century, except perhaps for the (non-Roman-controlled) hinterland (like the Ghassanid and Tanukhid domains), so it doesn't seem as plausible as in Arabia itself that the local variety of Arabic is descended from some non-Hijazi ancient Arabic variety. So, the mainstream of spoken Arabic at least does seem to be based on Old Hijazi, primarily anyway. Be that as it may, though, this is irrelevant for the present purpose, since you deleted the sentence in question. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the Naming section, how do scholars determine where to demarcate the limits - i.e. why are certain dialects excluded.~~
- I don't know because scholars don't explain. It all seems quite arbitrary and I couldn't find any source explaining clearly the demarcation. For instance Versteegh notes that some sedentary Levantine dialects have Levantine Bedouin features: "But the fact that they are all sedentary does not mean that they never have Bedouin features." (p. 188) but doesn't include Bedouin dialects in his classification. A455bcd9 (talk) Actually I should be more accurate: Arabic varieties form a continuum and there's no clear border between one variety and another (it's even a challenge for computers/AI to precisely identify the dialect of a sentence, example). So they're grouped based on existing social constructs (borders, ethnic groups, religion, etc.). Still, these social constructs can have a performative effect and gradually create clear borders between two varieties. This process is ongoing in the Levant. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Casliber: Have you had a chance to look at my answers yet? Let me know if there are other points I should improve. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity among Levantine dialects is not necessarily determined by geographical location or political boundaries. - "necessarily" redundant here. Examples seems to indicate "not at all" really
- Done A455bcd9 (talk)

~~Avoid 1-2 sentence short paragraphs~~
- I've just removed some 2-sentence paragraphs but I kept some that I considered "okay". If it's not, please let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)

I don't get any sense of how Levantine Arabic differs from MSA or Classical Arabic from reading this article (this should also be touched on in the lead too). Also am a bit worried that the Arabic article touches on this entity very little.
- Sources don't expand much on that. They are different languages, sharing about 50% of common words (that's less than French and English). As explained in the article, it's like French vs Romanian. Or French vs Latin. What would you like to see? I can try to find sources. A455bcd9 (talk)
  - Actually if too different this is impossible really. I thought they were more similar. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tentative support as it appears comprehensive and written in as accessible a manner without sacrificing meaning. I am not familiar with the linguistics so will defer to those who know more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe edit

In the #Speakers by country section, where are the overall national population figures coming from? How were these figures calculated and was this done in a comparable way to counting the number of Levantine speakers? Some of the percentage figures look wrong to me and they could be significantly off if there is a discrepancy, for example in the year that these figures are for. I would at least remove the percentage unless there's a RS that specifically gives a percentage. (t · c) buidhe 09:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The overall national population figures come from Ethnologue (2022 edition), I added the sources. The number of speakers (for apc and ajp) similarly come from Ethnologue's latest edition. Which percentage figures look wrong to you? The only one that surprised me was Qatar (33%). Ethnologue's estimate dates from 2019 for the language population figures, so it's quite recent and the overall population hasn't changed much since then. And given the large numbers of Lebanese, Palestinians, and Syrians (esp. since the Syrian Civil War), these numbers make sense. (here's another source). Ethnologue gives some of these percentage figures (for Palestine, Jordan, and Syria for instance) but not all of them, so I removed the percentage column. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a different type of Arabic, rather than just a modified version of the Classical language" I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Would it make more sense to axe this clause and rely on the next one to convey the linguistic view on the relationship of Classical Arabic to Levantine?

I simplified the sentence. What do you think? FWIW the source was: "In the preceding chapters, we have concentrated on the features that the Arabic vernaculars or dialects have in common as against the Classical Standard language. In that context, we have shown that they represent a different type of Arabic, rather than just a modified version of the Classical language." A455bcd9 (talk)

Not sure how the second paragraph in Classification is relevant to the article, since it does not seem to be about Levantine specifically. It would be more useful to cite research on how Levantine is understood across the Arab world, if that exists. I would remove this paragraph and merge the section with the previous one into "Naming and classification" (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the sanction and changed the paragraph. It turns out the same paper was also exploring how Levantine is understood across the Arab world. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk)

Paragraph 2 and 3 in "Diglossia and code-switching" are not about Levantine but about MSA, which seems excessive. I can see a couple sentences about how MSA is used in Arab societies but the article should be about Levantine rather than about MSA.

I simplified these paragraphs to focus less on MSA. Let me know if it's better now. A455bcd9 (talk)

"Titles in Levantine are common" -> do you mean headline?

Fixed A455bcd9 (talk)

I don't know how helpful it is to include seven separate romanizations. Personally, I would only show the most commonly used 2-4 since large tables can be hard to read.

I agree that it would be great to have fewer romanizations. However, none of them are official or more common. (there's a same issue for Romanization of Arabic and Romanization of Russian btw) If it was up to me I would remove Al-Masri and maybe Liddicoat, just because I'm not a big fan of them, but this seems quite an arbitrary choice. Also, Dimadick wrote below: "My only concern is whether we should add further romanizations to allow for the comprehension of the text for readers who can only read in the Latin alphabet." A455bcd9 (talk)

I made a lot of edits to the page in an attempt to improve readability and conciseness. None of them are absolutely necessary and please feel to revert if I got something wrong. A bot should fix the ref errors soon. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy with the changes (but don't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable supporting). (t · c) buidhe 10:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all these edits, the article is way more readable now! I fixed the "citation needed"/"when"/"unreliable source". I made a few changes as well.

Most importantly, I reverted this (your edit message was: "similarity to other Semitic languages does not necessarily say anything about genetic relationship if these are areal features, need clarification if this is to be kept"). According to the source: Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic. I think the source is reliable (and cites 3 other reliable sources) and clear so that it is enough to keep the passage as it is. Moreover, it makes sense to me:

Areal diffusion only could not explain why some features are shared by all Arabic vernaculars from Morocco to Central Asian Arabic, especially at a time when travel and communication was slow.
If the shared features with other Semitic languages are only due to areal diffusion, then Classical Arabic, which was used (spoken and/or written) in the same area would most likely have acquired these features as well (and not be the only Arabic variety that doesn't have them)
If vernaculars descended from Classical Arabic, as Classical Arabic is itself a Semitic language, it would be quite unlikely for some common Semitic features to be lost in Classical Arabic but then to "reappear" (through areal diffusion) in Classical Arabic's descendants (aka, vernaculars). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cerebellum edit

First of all, I want to congratulate A455bcd9 for their dedication to this article – 1500 edits on one article! I should also note that these are comments only, I'm not experienced at FAC so I'm not qualified to support or oppose. I'm reviewing backwards, starting at the end, because in the GA review I was burned out by the time I got to the end.

Thanks 🤗 A455bcd9 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of "Vocabulary" - seems like a WP:REFBOMB, the Economist and ref #303 should be sufficient to support the claim. Although personally I disagree, I think Gulf Arabic is closest to MSA ;)
- #303 only compares MSA to Algerian, Tunisian, Palestinian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian; that's why another editor (I forgot who) said it wasn't enough. The best is Ethnologue as it is the reference in linguistics (they say: "South Levantine Spoken Arabic [ajp] as spoken in Palestine is the most similar to MSA (Kwaik et al 2018, Harrat et al 2015)"). I removed other references. (for the context: before the paragraph was based only on the scientific papers, then Ethnologue added this sentence based on my suggestion [I'm a contributor to Ethnologue] and around the same time The Economist published their article, with figures based on the Wikipedia article, so it's a bit circular...). A455bcd9 (talk)
Regular verb conjugation - After past (perfect) and present (also called imperfect, b-imperfect, or bi-imperfect). I suggest adding a sentence along the lines of The present tense is formed by adding the prefix b- or m- to the verb root. I know the table explains this but it will help readers understand why it is called the b-imperfect.
- Done A455bcd9 (talk)
an equivalent passive on forms V and VI I think "on" should be "in".
- Done A455bcd9 (talk)
assimilates with "Sun letters" Do the sources capitalize sun?
- Fixed A455bcd9 (talk)

Other than that, the "Grammar" section strikes me as accurate and comprehensive. More to come. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The "Grammar" section is largely the work of @SarahFatimaK. I'm grateful for all her work on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikibooks. She's on a wikibreak so she may not review this FAC. There's also a longer Levantine Arabic grammar article if you're interested in this topic ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the rest of the article, I think it is great! Particularly enjoyed the medieval and early modern sections of History, looks like you've redone those since the GA review. Only two minor comments:

The Damascus Psalm Fragment, dated to the 9th century but possibly earlier, shed light - should be "sheds".
They also translated foreign works, such as La Fontaine's Fables - The word "Fables" and "The Little Prince" at the end of the paragraph should be italicized.

I also checked source-to-text integrity for some of the references to Brustad & Zuniga, no issues identified. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed these two points! A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cerebellum, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Not sure I'm qualified to give an opinion but I support. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Csisc edit

I have to thank A455bcd9 for what he has done for Levantine Arabic. I should recognize that many efforts have been provided to turn the work to what we currently see as an output. I consequently invite A455bcd9 to consider publishing it in Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Humanities. We need detailed referentials for the Arabic varieties as this one to progress research on the Arabic Linguistics. However, I need to raise several points that have not been pointed out by A455bcd9:

Thanks a lot @Csisc:, I didn't know the WikiJournal, I'll have a look! A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The work did not mention that Early modern Levantine Arabic alongside Egyptian Arabic have been considered when Arabic linguists have created Modern Standard Arabic as a more intelligible formal variety of Arabic. Several features of Levantine Arabic have been considered in Modern Standard Arabic including Phonology and Morphology.

That's an excellent idea. @Onceinawhile: suggested the same thing during the PR. Do you have sources on that? (otherwise I should be able to find it I guess) A455bcd9 (talk)

I've just checked the "Modern Standard Arabic" entry in the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics; it doesn't mention these Egyptian and Levantine influences. It only says: "Whereas Modern Standard Arabic intonation seems fairly uniform over regions, word stress in Modern Standard Arabic reflects the local colloquial dialect. Egyptian and Lebanese seem to represent two major patterns of stress and are briefly summarized here." Let me know if you have another good source about that point. A455bcd9 (talk)

Nothing either in "The Emergence of Modern Standard Arabic" in Kees Versteegh's The Arabic Language. A455bcd9 (talk)

Levantine Arabic phonology did not explain very well the differences between Syrian, Lebanese and South Levantine. Multiple points should be considered. An example is the assimilation in Lebanese: عندنا is pronounced عنّا.

There is a dedicated page Levantine Arabic phonology and the article is already quite long. Do you think the main differences can be summed up in one paragraph? If so, do you have a source by any chance? A455bcd9 (talk)

I've just double-checked all sources I had that are centered on Levantine Arabic in general (and not a specific Levantine dialect) and I added almost all the phonetic variations they mention. As the sources say, "The phonology of LA is characterized by rich socio-phonetic variations", so I think it would not be possible to discuss all the differences here. Phonology even varies inside a city (for instance, between the neighborhoods of Beirut). I think these points should be detailed later in Levantine Arabic phonology. What do you think?

The History Part can be developed a little bit. You can talk about language contact through colonization and the influence of Phoenician on the spread of Arabic in the region.

I couldn't find good sources on the history of Levantine Arabic. Do you have one? I mentioned language contact through colonization (the Crusades, the Ottomans, the French and British Mandates/Protectorate]), do you think it should be expanded more? Please note that these points are also mentioned in the "Vocabulary" section so here the "History" section is a bit a duplicate unfortunately. And because the article was long, I created Levantine Arabic vocabulary where readers can find more information. Regarding Phoenician, I don't remember any sources mentioning it. Do you have some? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask me for any further information when needed. Thank you. --Csisc (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: I thank you for your answer. I will be happy to support you with further references. We generally lack reference works in Arabic Linguistics. Your work can be an excellent resource for people interested in Levantine Arabic. First, feel free to expand the Bibliography to include interesting works discussing all aspects of the considered variety. A Bibliography should include books about the Orthography, Writing Systems, Morphology, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics, Semantics, and Dialectology for North and South Levantine. You can write it as Further Reading part. Concerning the reference that you can use to expand the parts I mentioned, you can refer to Commons:File:Feghali_-_Le_Parler_de_Kfár'abîda.pdf. I have uploaded this book. --Csisc (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old History and Link with Hebrew and Phoenician: You can find details at https://docenti.unimc.it/marco.lauri/teaching/2018/19450/files/articoli/2017_arabic_in_its_semitic_context.pdf and Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic. When we deal with the link between Hebrew, Phonenician and Levantine. We are NOT evocating the existence of a Substratum from Hebrew or Phoenician. We are EVOCATING that the use of Hebrew and Phoenician prior to the introduction of Arabic and the similarity between thèse languages and Arabic has allowed an easier spread and usage of Levantine Arabic. --Csisc (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The first link only mentions "Phoenician" once and it's not relevant to Levantine I think. Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic is 452-page long and yet "Phoenician" is only mentioned on 4 pages (excluding footnotes and references) and I don't see how this is relevant to Levantine. Let me know if there is a specific page and paragraph that I missed. A455bcd9 (talk)

The influence of Levantine and Egyptian on the normalization of Modern Standard Arabic: During the 19th Century, Arabic linguists have discovered that Classical Arabic is no longer intelligible to the speakers of the Arabic varieties. They borrowed several morphological, semantic and phonological structures from Egyptian and Levantine to invent a new standard variety of Arabic that is easier to learn for the Middle Eastern Community. An explanation can be found in Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties (pp. 37-46). This variety has grown in use thanks to Arab Renaissance. From a phonological perspective, the description of the IPA for Modern Standard Arabic in 1990 has been based on the observation of a Levantine Arabic speaker. Please refer to https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44526807.pdf. From a morphological and semantic perspective, all the work has been described at https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/43774/external_content.pdf?sequence=1#page=65. You can also refer to Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic and Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco. --Csisc (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties and I don't see where it mentions "The influence of Levantine and Egyptian on the normalization of Modern Standard Arabic". It actually says something quite opposite p. 44: "It recognizes the arabiya as the only "true" variety of Arabic and hence implicitly rejects the spoken dialects as corrupt." The passage doesn't mention "Levantine" btw. I checked the other link and couldn't find anything either. Also, as Buidhe said above, "the article should be about Levantine rather than about MSA" so we shouldn't talk too much about MSA, I think these points are too detailed for this article and (if we find reliable sources) should be added to Modern Standard Arabic. Still, please let me know if you have the exact reference (especially the page) of what you would like to see added. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phonology: Feel free to refer to https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Levantine+Arabic%22+phonology&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As said below, these sources could be used in Levantine Arabic phonology but are too detailed for this article (which is already quite long). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Please also add the Romanized Lebanese Transcription for the Example. Feel free to apply all these proposed changes to the main work as well as to Levantine Arabic phonology and Levantine Arabic vocabulary. --Csisc (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Csisc Unfortunately, the Romanized Lebanese Transcription (Akl's alphabet) cannot be added as it uses characters that are not part of the Unicode standard. I tried to find an image but it is subject to copyright. (Also, please note that there were many versions of this alphabet over time...) Yes I think your remarks would be more fit for Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary because this article is already quite long and we can't cover everything here :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: Several points are relevant to several parts of Levantine Arabic. History and Further Reading should be accordingly expanded. All the Akl's alphabet has been adapted where all the created letters have been substituted by Unicode ones. Please refer to http://www.lebanonlawreview.org/neo-lebanese/. Concerning the points I have raised and that are relevant to Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary, feel free to apply them too so that these works can achieve the same quality as the main work. When this is done, feel free to contact me again to publish the work at WikiJournal of Humanities and have credit for it. --Csisc (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Csisc: regarding the "History": could you please answer my comments above?

Regarding Akl's alphabet: Lebanonlawreview is not a reliable source in linguistics and I couldn't find their alphabet in a peer-reviewed paper or in a reliable book. So I'm afraid we cannot add it unfortunately. Also, as Buidhe commented earlier that: "I don't know how helpful it is to include seven separate romanizations. Personally, I would only show the most commonly used 2-4 since large tables can be hard to read." so it may be better not to add yet another transcription (still, if we find a Unicode-compatible Akl alphabet we could replace Al-Masri in the table and have the same number of columns).

Regarding "Further Reading": no worries, I will add a bunch of other sources and ping you in due time :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Thank you for your answer. Concerning the transliteration, you can use the same writing system you have use for South Levantine. Concerning Arabizi in Orthography and writing systems part, you can add details from https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/27669/Bou_2016.pdf?sequence=3. --Csisc (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Csisc. Thanks, unfortunately it's a master's thesis, so it cannot be used in a featured article (only good PhD thesis can I think, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP). A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Concerning Phonology, I found further references that can be used to expand Levantine Arabic phonology at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=%22Lebanese+Arabic%22&hl=fr&as_sdt=0,5. Feel free to use it. --Csisc (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Csisc, I will! Step by step, first this article, then the subarticles for Grammar, Phonology, Vocabulary. And then... Tunisian Arabic? ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Of course, I will be absolutely honoured to work again on Tunisian when you will publish the work on Levantine Arabic in WikiJournal of Humanities. --Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Concerning Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties, it can be used as a reference for language contact and the development of Arabic languages. Concerning the point on the influence on dialects, it can be found on Page 45 (i.e., Anis Furayha proposal "Nahwa 'arabiya muyassara"). You can find details at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43191693.pdf. You can find references at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Influence+of+dialects%22+%22Modern+Standard+Arabic%22&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Csisc I've added all the reference books and articles about Levantine in Levantine Arabic#Further reading. Are you satisfied with the present version or do you have a couple of references you would like to add? (we cannot add dozens of them and more detailed references could be added to the subarticles Grammar, Vocabulary, Phonology, etc.) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Csisc I check p. 45 of Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties but it says that t he proposal to simplify arabiya to make it closer to natively spoken dialects was refused. And in any case, as buidhe said, this article is about Levantine, not about Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Concerning Al Jallad's Ancient Levantine Arabic, he has evocated the influence of Semantic languages in use on the spread of Arabic language in Levant. However, this was not explicitly evocated. We can drop this. You can instead explain the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic as described in https://www.academia.edu/download/61761938/Al-Jallad_Manual_of_Historical_Arabic_v_2020-1.pdf. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Csisc. "the contributions of Phoenician and Hebrew in the constitution of Proto-Arabic" is an interesting subject but it is more for Classification of Arabic languages and the general Arabic article. It is not specific to Levantine either. So I think we can drop it for this article. But for sure we will need to work together on Arabic after ;) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Concerning the influence of Levantine Arabic on Modern Standard Arabic, this is a bit detailed. However, you can find all required references at https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Influence+of+dialects%22+%22Modern+Standard+Arabic%22&btnG=. You can read https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/412204.pdf (e.g., "A number of borrowings have come into MSA via the dialects. While it is true that some of these may have first been introduced by way of writing, they no doubt soon came into everyday use, and (together with some direct dialect borrowings) were then borrowed into MSA with their plurals and various derivations"). You can also refer to Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco, Variation in modern standard Arabic in radio news broadcasts: a synchronic descriptive investigation into the use of complementary particles, and Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic. If you are not convinced, we drop it. --Csisc (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Csisc for the references. I'm convinced that this is an important subject but it is wider than Levantine only. This article should focus as much as possible on Levantine Arabic only so I think that this point (the influence of dialects on MSA) would be better addressed in Modern Standard Arabic (much work is needed on that article by the way...). Therefore, I suggest we drop it for now and take it back when we start working on Modern Standard Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support. The work is outstanding and it needs to become featured. A455bcd9: What I propose is:

Making the History part without subsection titles. Concerning the red link for "Latin alphabet for Lebanese", please let it refer to Said Akl#Lebanese language and alphabet.
Concerning the other points, they are more relevant to Modern Standard Arabic. We will certainly work on them when you finish working on Levantine Arabic phonology, Levantine Arabic grammar, and Levantine Arabic vocabulary and also work on Tunisian Arabic.
Concerning Status and usage, the Education and Films and music parts need to be expanded. Education can become Education and Research. You can talk about when the first linguistic study has been conducted on Levantine Arabic and how research on Levantine Arabic has evolved resulting in NLP and Linguistic research. You can talk about when Levantine Arabic is taught all over the world and whether there are education programs for Levantine. Concerning Films and Music, it can be expanded to include the first traces of songs in Levantine.
Concerning the transcription in Romanized Lebanese, you can use the same writing system as Romanized Palestinian and finish it.

--Csisc (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! #1: Latin alphabet for Lebanese now points to your suggestion. #2: For sure! #3: "You can talk about when Levantine Arabic is taught all over the world and whether there are education programs for Levantine." => I added this at the beginning of the article (most commonly taught to non-native speakers outside the Arab world). "first traces of songs in Levantine": any idea where I could find a source for that? #4: I'll see what I can do. Thanks again for your help and suggestions :) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just added more references in "Further reading". A455bcd9 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: Metonyms of modernity in contemporary Syrian music and painting and Among the jasmine trees: Music, modernity, and the aesthetics of authenticity in contemporary Syria can provide a description of how music evolved in Levantine. Concerning Education and Research, you can find references online about historical works and NLP for Levantine Arabic. An example is Proverbes et dictons de la province de Syrie of 1883. Another example for NLP is Natural language processing for dialectical Arabic: A Survey. --Csisc (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9: I have also seen that you did not describe the Pragmatics of Levantine Arabic. You can refer to https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Pragmatics+Levantine&btnG=. --Csisc (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dimadick edit

Support Very comprehensive in its current form, and the list of citations is unusually large. It also covers well the diglossia prominent in the relative relative region, and provides written samples of Levantine Arabic. My only concern is whether we should add further romanizations to allow for the comprehension of the text for readers who can only read in the Latin alphabet. Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What do you mean by "whether we should add further romanizations"? (I tried to follow WP:MOSAR, even though it's more for MSA) A455bcd9 (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dimadick. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Sample texts" section, part of the Lebanese Arabic text has not been Romanized. Whether it is any different than the Palestinian Arabic is not clear. Dimadick (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes unfortunately the book didn't provide the Romanized version (besides the title) and I wondered whether it could be WP:OR to transliterate it. But if it's not and someone (@Nehme1499?) wants to transliterate it please feel free to do so. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really able to transliterate in that way. I'm only able to do so in the unofficial "text message" system (see Lebanese Arabic#Writing system). So, I would write "al-amir az-z'ghir" as "l amir l z8ir". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 07:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nehme1499 edit

Very nice article, I was surprised to see that so much effort has been put into it recently! I just wanted to comment regarding the infobox image: I had created the image back in 2018 using Microsoft Paint, to which A455bcd9 made a minor change. I think it would be nice if someone, who had a more sophisticated software at hand, could recreate the image from scratch in better quality. The sources are already listed there, so it would just be a matter of mapping based on the Jordan/Syria language border map. For Turkey, we'd manually include the Adana, Mersin and Hatay provinces. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nehme1499! I agree it would be nice to have a better quality map: I've just posted a request in the map workshop. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499, @Guerillero made File:LevantineArabic.svg. What do you think? Looks great to me, I made a few comments here (mainly on the colors + borders). Feel free to comment there as well. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little late here, but shouldn’t the Negev region be excluded from this map, since the article states the Arabic spoken there is not a Levantine dialect in the Naming section? Also not consistent with another map in the article, File:Arabic Dialects.svg. Al Ameer (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you're probably right. However, the sources we have include the Negev in their map to say that Levantine is widespread across Israel. Actually if we wanted a really accurate map we would only include localities with significant Arab populations: File:Map of Arabic speaking localities in Israel.png (other areas are either empty or populated mainly by non-Levantine speaking Jews) But anyway, we have to follow the sources. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to have dashes instead of full colour for Israel and the Mersin/Adana/Hatay area (and potentially other areas?), to indicate that Levantine Arabic in those regions isn't the primary language. Regarding the Negev, is there a source that states that Levantine Arabic is spoken there? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 07:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are two sources: Ethnologue, which says that South Levantine is "widespread" in Israel (meaning, spoken on the whole territory) and Brustad and Zuniga which have a map coloring the whole Israel. So unfortunately, we cannot use dashes I think and we have to respect whatever sources we have. I would love a better source to exist but despite A LOT of research, I haven't been able to find any...

By the way, if we want to be correct, we should also exclude Jewish settlements from the West Bank. But the map is not the territory, the map will always be wrong, it's just of model of the reality, and I think we have to accept the current one as the best we can have for the moment (unfortunately!). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~This map shows that Eastern Egyptian / Bedawi Spoken Arabic is spoken in the Negev, not Southern Levantine.~~ Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I thought we were talking about the Sinai... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other maps of Levantine Arabic / Arabic dialects in the Levant, once the SVG map is completed:

c:File:Levantine Arabic Map.jpg and c:File:Levantine Arabic Map 2021.jpg should be deleted as the SVG map would be identical, but more accurate and of better quality
c:File:Levantine Arabic Map v4-ar.png, c:File:Levantine Arabic Map v4.png and c:File:Levantine Arabic Map.png should also be deleted as they are inaccurate and are mostly OR
c:File:Map Arabic in the Levant.jpg should also have its own SVG better-quality version, with other languages in the Levant region (such as Najdi, Levantine Bedawi, Assyrian, Hebrew, etc.) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 06:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against deleting these files but I think the practice on Wikimedia Commons is to keep all files and never to delete them (unless there's a copyright infringement). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, A455bcd9 is right. The most you can do is add a pointer to the higher-quality or more correct file. (t · c) buidhe 19:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: I added the new map to Levantine Arabic. As we cannot easily delete the previous files, I added a pointer to the new map as recommended by buidhe saying that "This file has been superseded" (see for instance: File:Levantine Arabic Map 2021.jpg). I also updated all articles on all Wikipedias using one of the old maps. Please let me know if you're in a position to support or if there are other things that need to be improved :) A455bcd9 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you can actually ask for the old maps to be deleted by following this procedure. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (and Guerillero) for taking care of the map, it looks much better now! Regarding my position: unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge about linguistics (as much as the subject is interesting to me), so I don't feel qualified to support. I really hope other users (who have more expertise on the topic) can voice their opinion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand! :) A455bcd9 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehme1499, if you don't feel able to support (I know zilch about linguistics and I have to close this!) I would appreciate it if you could confirm that you have no reason to oppose - assuming that that is the case. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I do not. I neither have reasons to support nor oppose. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: does "Levant / Greater Syria" violate WP:SLASH? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't about removing the spaces between "Levant" and "Greater Syria", and the slash. WP:SLASH states: Avoid joining two words with a slash [...] because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Ok, I did it because Cerebellum suggested doing so in the past in Talk:Levantine Arabic/GA1. But I have no idea what is the best thing to do. The issue is that the terms are often used as synonyms but have two different Wikipedia pages... (I suggested merging them once) A455bcd9 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Al Ameer edit

Great work overall, but some concerns and comments I hope the nominator could address. As I do not know much about linguistics, these will be mainly concerned with History, prose and MoS.

"... proving that these varieties cannot have developed from Classical Arabic" reads as a thesis statement. Because it’s in Wikipedia’s voice without attribution, it implies the statement is uncontested. If it is uncontested, could you confirm? If not quite, then I would suggest: "Many Arabic varieties preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and are closer to other Semitic languages, which, to most scholars, indicates these varieties did not develop from Classical Arabic."

According to the source: Traditionally, Classical Arabic has been regarded as more or less identical with the ancestor of all varieties of Arabic, ancient and modern, and thus as nearly identical to Proto-Arabic (Fischer 1997: 187–8). However, many varieties of Arabic both ancient and modern preserve features lost in Classical Arabic and present a state corresponding more closely to what is found in other Semitic languages (Al-Jallad 2018b, Huehnergard 2017, Pat-El 2017). This shows that these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic. I didn't find any scholar contesting this statement in recent years. So I think it is uncontested today. But I'm happy to add "according to most scholars" if you think it is necessary. A455bcd9 (talk)

Thank you for providing the direct quote—it appears to be close paraphrasing: "many varieties of Arabic ... preserve features lost in Classical Arabic ... these varieties of Arabic cannot have developed from Classical Arabic") is very close to the wording in this article. Hopefully, it’s a one-off, but as a precaution, I recommend you check for any more incidences throughout the article.

Based on the quote, the author is stating their own conclusion that the varieties cannot have developed from Classical Arabic, contrary to what is (or was) the traditional view. In this case, I recommend attributing to the author specifically as opposed to my initial proposal of "most scholars". How about something like: "Several Arabic varieties are closer to other Semitic languages, maintaining features not found in Classical Arabic. According to [insert source], this indicates Classical Arabic was not the ancestor of these varieties". Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used your suggestion regarding paraphrasing.

I don't understand your second point. Birnstiel cites the conclusion from three authors. Birnstiel's chapter is in a book by Huehnergard (Professor Emeritus in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, and former Professor of Semitic Philology at Harvard University) and Pat-El (Na‘ama Pat-El is Associate Professor of Comparative Semitic Linguistics in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin). In the introduction of the book, Huehnergard and Pat-El write: While it is often assumed that the modern forms of Arabic derive from the classical language, the fact that they exhibit features inherited from common Semitic, but not found in Classical Arabic, shows that they derive from other early forms of Proto-Arabic (see, e.g., Pat-El 2017). Figure 1.1 "THE INTERNAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES" in the introduction (it used to be in the article but I moved it to Classification of Arabic languages, you can find it here as well as Figure 8.1) shows that spoken Arabic doesn't descend from Classical Arabic. They write that While that model in its broadest outline reflects a general consensus among today’s Semitists, it should be noted that some scholars – including some of the contributors to the present volume – prefer other models. Huehnergard in the source cited by Birnstiel (Huehnergard 2017) also writes: The modern colloquial forms of Arabic likewise do not descend directly from the classical written language. I cannot, however, agree with Owens that the colloquials derive from an ancestor or ancestors that existed from the Proto-Semitic period alongside the classical language. There are undoubtedly several Proto-Neo-Arabics along-side the classical form of the language, in a dialect continuum in which—just like today—those that were in contact influenced each other, and each was influenced by, and had its influence on, the classical literary language. But standard comparative-linguistic methodology requires that all of these—the several Proto-Neo-Arabic strains, the classical literary language, the pre-classical poetic language, the forms of Middle Arabic—that all of these various forms of Arabic do descend from a single entity that we can label Proto-Arabic, an entity that itself is a unique descendant of Central Semitic. Owens writes in The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics: All in all, once one gives up the notion that Classical Arabic is identical to proto-Arabic, then the linguistic door is opened to argue for Classical Arabic itself as having been innovative in various ways. Muhammad al-Sharkawi writes in History and Development of the Arabic Language: It is to be expected that the dialects should have wide phonological, morphological and syntactic similarities with the Classical variety. They share a common origin. It is also expected that the dialects develop all in one direction that is different from the Classical variety because they responded to a set of environmental factors the Classical variety did not face and respond to. Now, as for the phenomenon of the dialects developing similarly away from the Classical variety but the development was formally different, they refer to the previous analysis that was supported in the previous chapter. We have seen earlier that the dialects were formed by means of several koines, which went through processes of simplification and informal language learning. and These two aspects, Ferguson claims, assure us that the dual in the dialects developed from one ancestor variety, which is not the Classical language. So at the very least we should say "according to Birnstiel, Huehnergard, Al-Jallad, Pat-El, Fergson, al-Sharkawi, and Owens". I looked at other sources and it seems to me that they all agree that varieties of Arabic didn't develop from Classical Arabic. But they disagree on which came first, how was the common ancestor, how they developed, whether Classical Arabic was spoken or not in the past or already only a literary language, etc. So I suggest we keep the current wording. Unless we find a recent reliable source that says that modern dialects descend from Classical Arabic? A455bcd9 (talk)

Just found another source: The scenarios drawn by Diem (1978), Versteegh (1984), and others confirm the current opinio communis that the array of historical and modern Arabic dialects cannot be directly derived from Classical Arabic, let alone from some kind of ‘Proto-Arabic’. (Edzard, Lutz (2011), "Convergence", Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Brill, doi:10.1163/1570-6699_eall_eall_com_0069). So it seems uncontested ("opinio communis") that dialects don't descend from Classical Arabic. I suggest keeping the current paragraph then. A455bcd9 (talk)

Thank you for presenting all of this. The current language is much better and I am more comfortable that this is indeed the widely accepted view among scholars. Only thing is the word "proving" in Wikipedia’s voice is not encyclopedic and more of a thesis statement; I recommend at least revising to "indicating" or similar, or a different configuration altogether. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "indicating". A455bcd9 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"considered the most beautiful variety by Arabs"—though backed by two RS, this seems too bold of a statement as there are hundreds of millions of Arabic speakers and I cannot imagine they all consider Levantine to be the most beautiful dialect. Perhaps qualify this statement?

The sources are: 1/ a small survey of native (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) concluding: In response to the question “Which Arabic dialect(s) do you think sound the most beautiful?” both NS and NNS preferred the Levantine dialect. (52% of the votes among native-speakers) and 2/ Schmitt: Any Arabs outside of the Levant consider Levantine Arabic to be more beautiful in comparison to other dialects in the Arab world. I added "by most Arabs" to qualify the statement. Let me know if this is okay for you. A455bcd9 (talk)

A small survey, which concludes little over half of the participants chose Levantine, does not seem like a good source to use for this statement. Schmitt seems to be making an anecdotal assertion (correct me if I’m wrong), which also seems too weak for us to use for this statement. I recommend just doing away with the sentence. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitt writes: Today, Levantine Arabic, especially in Lebanon, is often mixed with French vocabulary. The more highly educated Lebanese sometimes refuse to speak Arabic, only French, as a way to show their social status. This mix of French and Arabic is important because it affects the perception of the Levantine dialect as a whole by Arabs. Any Arabs outside of the Levant consider Levantine Arabic to be more beautiful in comparison to other dialects in the Arab world. In part, this attitude stems from the reputation of Levantine Arabic speakers, who seem to take more pride in their dialect. So it's more than an anecdotal assertion. On the other hand I found this source (p. 20) which concludes that Egyptian is considered the most beautiful, followed by Levantine (especially for women). But anyway, I removed the sentence. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is for the best because this is still subjective in my opinion. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"With the Muslim conquest of the Levant, some Arabic speakers settled in the Levant". I think more specifics are warranted. Perhaps "The 7th-century Muslim conquest brought a wave of Arabic speakers who settled in the Levant" or something along these lines.

The source only says: With the advent of Islam, the entire Levant became the new home of Arabic speakers originating from the Arabian Peninsula as well I modified a bit the sentence but I'm reluctant to use the term "wave" because we don't know how many Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula settled in the Levant and wave implies a big number I think. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk)

I am fine with the revision. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since about eight decades passed between the conquest and the institution of Arabic as the language of administration, I would split this off into a separate sentence and state "In the early 8th century, under Umayyad. rule, Arabic replaced Greek as the language of administration".

According to Magidow: Greek had little success in becoming the spoken language of the Levant, in spite of nearly nine hundred years of Greek administration prior its replacement by Arabic in the seventh century CE. Sources I have don't mention the early 8th century, do you have such a source? A455bcd9 (talk)

The language change in Syria's administration took place by order of Abd al-Malik in c. 700 (so six to seven decades after conquest not eight as I stated above). I will add this with sources. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The date was actually mentioned in one of the sources already cited in the article so I added it. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks; I made slight modifications. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link Samaritans

Already linked above (in "Ethnicity and religion"). Should I still link it? Or duplicate link? A455bcd9 (talk)

Ah yes, ignore then. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Eventually, Aramaic nearly disappeared", any general idea when?

No because it didn't disappear as it is still spoken today. So we would need to define "nearly". Sources don't mention that. They just say it was a very long and gradual process. A455bcd9 (talk)

I found a source actually and modified the sentence. A455bcd9 (talk)

Thanks for clarifying, I always thought it took much longer. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are Arabic names of places and persons written with diacritics (el-Rāʿi, Ṭannūs al-Ḥurr), while most others do not. I would remove for consistency.

Done A455bcd9 (talk)

Several duplicate links which should be removed. You can use this side-bar tool to highlight these.

I removed many of them. I kept those where different terms point to the same article because I think it can help readers. For instance, "Latinize" and "Romanization" linked to Romanization, or "invisible copula" and "no copula" linked to zero copula. If this is not okay let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)

No issue there. Al Ameer (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue over the next day or two. Al Ameer (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Al Ameer son for taking the time to review this nomination :) Please let me know if my answers addressed your comments. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "common Syrian Arabic" based on Damascene? If so, could you mention this? If not, ignore.

The source says: There is no national standard colloquial comparable to the Cairo dialect in Egypt. The dialect of Damascus does not play this eminent role. There is what one may call a ‘common Syrian Arabic’, which, however, allows regional variants. There are rather local koines like the Damascus dialect, the dialects of Aleppo and £ama, or the Mardìn dialect of Qàmišli in northeastern Syria. Or to put it otherwise: acceptable is what is not too deviant. A455bcd9 (talk)

Similar to the Muslim conquest, could we provide a more specific time period for the Seleucid, Roman and Byzantine eras?

I added the period for the Seleucid Empire as it is mentioned in the source but I couldn't find the dates for the Roman and Byzantine eras. It seems that Roman Syria started in 64 BC and ended at the end of 4th century. And that Byzantine Syria lasted from 415 to 630s. If you have sources for that please let me know. A455bcd9 (talk)

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

No need for that footnote about the Tanukhids.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

I changed incidences of written centuries (sixth century) into numeric form (6th century) for consistency. Please check for any other instances. It does not matter which form is used, just that it is consistent throughout. Note: to answer your edit summary, it would be fine in this case to replace [twelfth century] with [12th century] despite being in a quote; if you prefer, you could place "in the 12th century" right after the quote.

Thanks. Fixed for the quote. A455bcd9 (talk)

Instances of centuries between first and ninth should be spelled out, and not written as "1st" or "9th" as per MOS:ORDINAL. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent style is more important, I believe. 1st through 9th are frequently written in the numeric form in Featured articles. Again, not opposed to written form, but all centuries should be written out if that’s the style chosen for the article. Will not press this either way. Al Ameer (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"20th and 21st centuries" would look ugly in written form. I'm fine with the current version, except for "dates to the ninth to 10th centuries, or earlier" which looks terrible. According to MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." so I'll change that one back to numeric form. For the other numbers, I don't know what to do. A455bcd9 (talk)

According to MOS:CENTURY: "Centuries and millennia are identified using either "Arabic" numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting)." MOS:ERA also gives the following example: "Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD". So both forms seem okay (19th century in written form and third century in numeric form). Thus, I think that the current version respects the MOS. But changing everything to numeric forms would also respect the MOS. So it seems to be a matter of taste/preference. Again, I'm fine with everything, just tell me what to do :) A455bcd9 (talk)

The article seems fine now. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently" => I think this applies to the whole article (cf. the discussion here), not only to sentences. Also, all articles on Wikipedia use the numeric form for centuries and millennia, e.g. 1st century BC, 1st century, 5th century, 1st millennium, Christianity in the 1st century, Socialism of the 21st century. So this seems to be the convention. For instance, "second century" leads to 3,868 results vs 12,080 for 2nd century. So I suggest changing back all century and millennium figures to the numeric form. OK for you @Nehme1499? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wasn't aware of the other guidelines. I'm fine with whatever is decided in the MOS talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go with the numeric. Final offer ;) Al Ameer (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CENTURY has been updated to make it explicit that in-article consistency is needed so I changed all values to the numeric forms for centuries and millennia. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"conquest Arabic" → "post-conquest Arabic"?

p. 428 of the source: Unlike the pre-Islamic attestations, the coda of the article in the conquest Arabic assimilates to a following coronal consonant. A455bcd9 (talk)

Was Akl’s creation of Latin alphabet for Lebanese in the 1930s? I couldn’t tell from any of our articles on the subject. If so, ignore.

The source says: La politique linguistique de Sa'ìd 'Aql se traduit par : a. l’emploi d’un nouvel alphabet latin daté des années 30 du XXe siècle (plusieurs versions à observer). but then says: La parution de Yaara [1961], le premier recueil de S 'ìd 'Aql publié en langue libanaise et en nouvel alphabet (v. § 2), a donné l’impression qu’il s’agis- sait d’un phénomène tout à fait nouveau dans le monde arabe et d’un phénomène isolé. Pourtant, les plus anciens textes connus, écrits en nouvel alphabet (très différent de celui usité dans les ouvrages publiés après 1961) sont : un poème d’amour et « El bxayra », la traduction du poème « Le lac » de Lamartine [Rù ̇àna, op. cit., p. 89-92]. So I understand that an alphabet was created in the 1930s (by whom? Akl? When he was 20-30yo?) and then modified by Akl in the 1960s-1980s. So I changed to "In the 1960s". A455bcd9 (talk)

Israeli-Arabs or Arab-Israelis? I’d choose one for consistency.

I don't know what to do here. As explained in Arab citizens of Israel: "The Arab population is called Israeli-Arabs or simply "Arabs" by Israel,[5][6] and international media often use Arab-Israeli to distinguish them from Palestinians in the Palestinian territories." Initially I used the term from the sources (such as "Palestinian Israeli ") but someone said it wasn't neutral and I should use something else instead. So I changed. Seems impossible to satisfy everyone. I'm happy with anything, but I don't want to have to make a decision myself between terms that are all ideologically connoted... What would you recommend? A455bcd9 (talk)

Personally, I prefer Palestinian-Israeli, but this point was more about consistency. I see Arab-Israeli used more often in the article so I say go with that. If an issue is raised about the neutrality of that term by other users, then we could cross that bridge. Al Ameer (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian-Israeli is problematic as most Druze do not consider themselves Palestinians. I changed to Arab Israeli. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am at Phonology now; will have this wrapped up soon. Al Ameer (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason emerged is linked? Seems unnecessary.

Fixed A455bcd9 (talk)

Said Akl is introduced four times in the article as a Lebanese literary figure or Lebanese; one introduction is sufficient.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

It is stated in two places that Modern Hebrew significantly influenced the Palestinian Arabic of Arab Israelis since Israel was established in 1948 (History and Vocabulary). On the second mention (Vocabulary), I recommend just "Modern Hebrew significantly influences the Palestinian dialect spoken by Arab Israelis".

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

Lead says Palestinian has 50% common words with MSA, but I did not see this in article body. The last paragraph of Vocabulary mentions 20% identical words. The reference to the Economist article mentions 60%. If the lead is referencing the latter point, it should be in the article prose rather than in a footnote and the lead should also say "about 60%"—unless I missed something.

The Economist says "only about 60% of the local lingo overlaps with MSA", which is most likely based on the previous study: 20% of common words + 40% of derived/similar words. The other source, Ethnologue, is more accurate: "South Levantine Spoken Arabic as spoken in Palestine (52%) is the most similar to Standard Arabic (Kwaik et al 2018, Harrat et al 2015)." A455bcd9 (talk)

This is better explained (with the different studies and figures) here but I trimmed this section in the main article. A455bcd9 (talk)

Since "about 50%" is written in the lead, this figure should also be written out in the body. Al Ameer (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do one more read-through, but otherwise that should be it from me. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and edits. Let me know if my answers addressed your remarks :) A455bcd9 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tremendous efforts, A455bcd9, a job well done. It's a support from me. I truly enjoyed reading this—hits close to home on many levels. Though I'm no linguist and illiterate in Arabic, I'm a decent Levantine speaker and can vouch for the dialectical differences between the various Levantine regions that the article presents. Some of Phonology went over my head, but that is understandable. While the article is very comprehensive, one area I hope can be expanded in the near future is History, because the section appears a bit sketchy. I accept the nominator's explanation to Csisc that it was difficult to find good sources for this. It does not affect my support for the nomination, I just want nominator and interested editors to keep this in mind. Al Ameer (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Al Ameer son for your support. I also hope that the History section may one day be expanded but I'm afraid it will stay like this for a while, unfortunately. Indeed, as Jérôme Lentin concluded in "The Levant" in Arabic Historical Dialectology (2018, Oxford University Press): It has probably become clear from the preceding pages that the challenging project of writing even an outline history of the Levantine dialects is currently unachievable, and one fears that it will remain an elusive goal for some time to come for various reasons, some of which have been described in detail. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'll do a source review, starting tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbering is based on this version.

In the Sources section, Amara (2017) and Shalaby (2020) are out of alphabetical order.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

You have an ISBN for Cowell (1964), but that date is too early -- if you're using a reprinted edition you may need to use the "orig" parameter.

I removed the ISBN. A455bcd9 (talk)

You have 23 citations to Lutz et al.'s 2011 Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics in the References, none of which have a page number.

It's an online encyclopedia so articles don't have page numbers as far as I know. I don't have the book (if there's one) but I had access to the online articles (I paid for a 24h access and downloaded what I wanted). A455bcd9 (talk)

[153] references "Versteegh 2019" but there's no source by that name and date; I think this should be 2014.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

Can we get a publisher for [188]?

Fixed. (I had to go to the British Library for that one :) ) A455bcd9 (talk)

What makes hortensj-garden.org a reliable source?

Fixed, I replaced by the original source (Linguasphere) cited by hortensj-garden.org. A455bcd9 (talk)

What makes Al-Jallad (2020a) reliable? I believe academia.edu can contain self-published material, so is the author a scholar in the field?

I think it is reliable because Al-Jallad is a professor and the Chair in Arabic Studies at the Ohio State University. His books, chapters, and articles are cited several times in the article. His Manual of the Historical Grammar of Arabic is cited in Behnstedt and Woidich's Wortatlas der arabischen Dialekte: Band IV (2021). A455bcd9 (talk)

For al-Wer (2006), the OCLC takes you here but this is volume 3, which is what you're citing.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

In the listings for Birnstiel (2019) and Brustad & Zuniga (2019) you give an OCLC for Huehnergard that takes you to the physical book, but the ISBN is for an ebook edition.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

The ISBN for Schmitt (2019) leads to an edition with an OCLC that doesn't match the one you give -- did you consult the ebook or the physical edition?

I checked the PDF I have ("ISBN 978-3-030-02437-6 ISBN 978-3-030-02438-3 (eBook) ISBN 978-3-030-02439-0 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3") and modified accordingly. A455bcd9 (talk)

Check the ISBN for Tiedemann (2020) -- Worldcat can't find that ISBN.

I have the book at home and I've just checked the ISBN inside is "978-1-73446-040-7". Worldcat gives "9781942844419" as the ISBN but that's for the 2015 edition (vs 2020). I guess they made a mistake. A455bcd9 (talk)

For Versteegh (2014) it looks like the ISBN and OCLC don't match -- one goes to the ebook and the other to the printed book.

I copied the ISBN from Worldcat so I guess (hope?) it should be fine now. A455bcd9 (talk)

The further reading section is quite long. Per WP:Further reading, the list should be enough to give broad bibliographic coverage, but the section is not intended to be an catalogue of all relevant works. Are all these necessary for the reader to get broad coverage of the topic?

Csisc wanted more sources to be added to "Further reading" so I added the main sources cited as references by the sources in "Sources" (if that makes sense). I'm happy to remove some if necessary (although I'm not sure which ones...). A455bcd9 (talk)

I removed 5 that were either redundant (the complement to a dictionary already listed) or too broad (an atlas of Arabic dialects in general). A455bcd9 (talk)

Removed 3 other refs. A455bcd9 (talk)

Per OCLC, Bauer (1957) has a co-author, Spitaler.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the review, I'll comment below each of your points if that's fine. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. I'll pause now as you're replying, to avoid edit conflicts, and will come back later this morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect @Mike Christie. I've just answered your comments. I'll answer them all at once in the future (instead of one by one) to avoid edit conflicts. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Check the ISBN for both Omar (1974) and Omar (1976); OCLC can't find either one.

I used what I found on Google Books for Omar 1974 and Omar 1976. If that's incorrect let me know and I'll remove these ISBNs. A455bcd9 (talk)

For Pimsleur (1998) it looks like you've accidentally duplicated the author name into the publisher field.

Fixed.

Are all the external links needed? Per WP:EL the links should only be used for material that is not in the article, so for example do the links to the corpus and dictionaries add anything to the sources already linked further up the article?

I removed one link already linked further up (WALS) and two not focused on Levantine and quite broad (the databases). I think the remaining links are needed as they are the only online dictionaries/translators available for Levantine. A455bcd9 (talk)

In [143] Miller is a co-editor as well as the author of one of the contributions.

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

In [168] the OCLC and ISBN don't match -- one goes to the ebook, the other to the printed edition.

I don't understand because when I click on the OCLC number and check Worldcat they give the same ISBN: 9780865980587. A455bcd9 (talk)

[54]'s archive link is just an archive of the Worldcat page. It's not really a problem for FAC but I don't see the point of an archive link like that -- it doesn't help the reader find the text; you already have the bibliographic information in the citation.

Archive link removed. A455bcd9 (talk)

The archive link for [37] doesn't work for me; the one for [36] brings up the map, but not [37].

Fixed. A455bcd9 (talk)

The archive link for [180] brings up a blank page.

I replaced the PDF link by a normal web page and removed the link to the archive. A455bcd9 (talk)

For [249] no content appears in the archive link.

I couldn't solve the problem so I removed the archive link. A455bcd9 (talk)

That's everything. I'll let you reply to these and then go back through your responses to both sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @Mike Christie. I've just replied to all the points you raised. Let me know if there are still issues. A455bcd9 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review pass. Almost everything above is fixed; in a couple of cases there seems to be something odd about the OCLC entries, but that's not this article's problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this source review! (and feel free to ping me if you need a review in one of your FAC in the future :) ) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check edit

Since this is your first FAC, a spotcheck of the citations is required. I'm going to pick 10 footnotes, more or less at random, and will ask you for the supporting text if I don't have access to the source myself. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

182: OK.
146: OK.
83: Used to support "Levantine is the second language of Assyrians in Lebanon". The relevant source text appears to be "The most frequent case is situational code-switching, when people alternate between codes depending on a situation or envi-ronment: e.g. an Aramean from Syria would speak his modern Aramaic vernacular within his family, Syrian Arabic in town and write a formal letter in fusḥa." Can you clarify if this is the text I should be looking at, and if so, how it supports the article text?
187: Płonka (2006) is used to support "Foreign works, such as La Fontaine's Fables, were translated into Lebanese using Akl's alphabet". Can you send me the text that supports this?
90: Used to support Turkey's population. I don't have access but independent sources confirm the number, so this is OK.
211: OK.
9: OK.
312 & 313: Used to support "An analysis of spoken words from five-year-old native Palestinian speakers concluded that 40% were not present in MSA; 40% were related to MSA but different in 1 to 6 phonological parameters (such as sound change, addition, or deletion); and 20% were identical to MSA". Can you send me the text that supports this from both sources?
61: Used to support "Differences between Muslim and Christian dialects are minimal, mainly involving some religious vocabulary". Can you send me the supporting text?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie and thanks again for your help. I can send you the texts by email if that's fine for you. I've just sent you an email to get your address. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9 I think Mike Christie is asking for the specific text that supports each of these points. It would probably be easier just to copy and paste the relevant text here. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way works -- I just replied to the email, so if they want to send me snips that's fine too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry. So:

[83]: Bilingualism is characteristic for Berbers in Maghreb, Arameans in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey, Arabs in Israel, Kurds in Northern Syria and Turkey, Azeris and Arabs in Iran etc. and later: The most frequent case is situational code-switching, when people alternate between codes depending on a situation or environment: e.g. an Aramean from Syria would speak his modern Aramaic vernacular within his family, 'Syrian Arabic in town and write a formal letter in fusḥa.
- Arameans = Assyrians. Syrian Arabic = Levantine Arabic. We have to consider that "bilingualism" in the case of Arameans in Lebanon means Aramaic-Levantine bilingualism. But someone could argue that this is not explicitly written and that maybe Arameans in Lebanon are bilingual in Aramaic and English or French but don't speak Arabic. In that case please let me know and I'll remove "Assyrians in Lebanon" from the list. Please note that the problem doesn't exist for Assyrians in Syria as Ethnologue (the source cited just before) explicitly lists them as L2 speakers of North Levantine.
[187]: Dans la série Çajmal Qe†ub el Áaalam on a publié les ouvrages originaux et les traductions des ouvrages de la littérature mondiale suivants : Ce¥ara Finiçiyyi, Çaayaa† W Íuar (Poètes phéniciens, Versets et images) ; Çaflatoon, Difaa¥ Seçraat we Qri†oon (Platon, L’apologie de Socrate et Critias), trad. Me†rì Ne'màn ; Ceqspiir, Roomyo w Julyee† (Shakespeare, Roméo et Juliette), trad. Kamàl F. ”aràbì (un Syrien, sic) ; Maar Yuxanna, L Çenjiil (l’Évangile selon saint Jean ), trad. Kam àl F. ”aràbì ; L Çimaam Áali, Ceçaf mne n Nahj ('Alì Ibn Abì ˇàlib, fragments du Nah< al-balà©a), trad. Na ≥ìb ¥amàl el-D ìn ; La Fonteen, L Çamsaal (La Fontaine, Les Fables), trad. Kamàl F. Saràbì ; Íalaax Labaqi, Marjuux† l Çamar (Íalà ̇ Labakì, La balançoire de la lune ), publié aussi dans Lebnaan dans la série « nakb men çadab Lebnaan » : 452, p. 2 ; 453, p. 2 ; 454, p. 2 ; 455, p. 2.
[312] and [313]:
- [312] (available here): Saiegh-Haddad & Ali (2009) analyzed the spoken lexicon of fiveyear-old Arabic native speaking children. The children spoke a local dialect of Palestinian Arabic vernacular spoken in the north of Israel. A total of 4,400 word types derived from a corpus of 17,500 word tokens were analyzed and the linguistic distance between each spoken word and its corresponding form in Standard Arabic was qualified. The results showed that 40% of the spoken Arabic words analyzed had phonologically related cognate forms in Standard Arabic and that these cognate words (or paired-lexical items) were different in 1–6 phonological parameters each, with sound change, sound addition and sound deletion characterizing the phonological distance between the two forms (Ali 2009). The results also showed that only 20% of the words that children produced had identical forms in SpA and StA,2 and 40% of them had a unique lexical form in StA.
- [313]: A total of 96 five-year-old children from the three data collection sites mentioned above participated in the study. [...] The results showed that the most predominant type of lexical items in Child Arabic is the class of cognates making up 40.6 % of the total number of word types. These are words that are used in Spoken Arabic, yet their phonological form is altered in Standard Arabic as a result of various largely predictable computational processes, such as consonant change, or glottal-stop deletion/addition (e.g., Spoken δahab versus Standard dahab ‘gold’ or Spoken sama versus Standard sama: ʕ ‘sky’). 30.9 % of the words were unique words that have a lexical form in Spoken Arabic that is not used in Standard Arabic and hence does not have a conventional written form. In this case, Standard Arabic has a completely different lexical item to encode the same meaning (e.g., Spoken ħaṭ versus Standard waḍaʕ‘he put’). Finally, only 21.2 % of the words in Spoken Arabic were overlapping words that are also used in Standard Arabic (e.g., Spoken and Standard janu:b ‘north’ or daftar ‘notebook’).
- So I don't know why I cited 313 (by the same author) which cites slightly different figures (that don't add up to 100%!). I attended a conference by the author two weeks ago and she repeated the 40%/40%/20% distribution. I checked her latest book published last month (p. 405), [313] is cited and they give the 40%/40%/20% breakdown. The original source seems to be "Ali, Yasmin. 2009. A corpus linguistic study of the lexicon of five year old Arabic native speaking children. Unpublished MA dissertation. Bar-Ilan University. Israel." (with probably Elinor SAIEGH-HADDAD as the supervisor) but I couldn't find it.
- Conclusion: I removed 313.
[61]: In most cases in Egypt and the Levant, for instance, dialect differences between Muslims and Christians are minimal, involving some vocabulary items, mainly in the religious realm, or non‐existent. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed quotes. The spot check passes, but you might paraphrase that last sentence a little more, per WP:PARAPHRASE -- it's quite close to the original phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I changed the last sentence, I hope it's better. I also added another reliable source for Assyrians in Lebanon and their use of Arabic. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I'm recused, but it looks like this may be ready to promote! (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.