Talk:Indo-European languages

Indo-European languages was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Talk:Indo-European languages/Archive 1 (December 2001 to August 2005)
Talk:Indo-European languages/Archive 2 (September 2005 to June 2005)

GA failed

For these reasons:

Some researchers have proposed other, more controversial supergroupings. like whom? can we have a citation for that?
No doubt other Indo-European languages could be less pov.
Rephrase this please They disagree as to the original geographic location (the so-called "Urheimat" or "original homeland") from where it originated.
This sub-section should be a full prose, with no lists.
Is it possible to have a text instead of a list in the sub-section The Kurgan hypothesis? It looks more like an almanac as it stands.
The Tarim mummies possibly correspond to proto-Tocharians., it would be nice to know who said it or if every scientist believes in this.
Could A strength of the Kurgan hypothesis lies... be balanced by a weakness to remove the POVness of the statement.
spreading peacefully ... who knows there weren't any wars?
Can we have a counterargument of The main strength of the farming hypothesis lies ....
The inline external references should be turned into footnotes or references.
Is this :The linguistic community claims a common Indo-European word..., another theory or part of the Anatolian theory? If so, place it in another paragraph. If not, remove the parenthesis and state it as an example against or for the theory.
IMO, there aren't enough references for the researches that were done on the languages, especially for the history section.
The Lead section doesn't comply to the WP:LEAD policy.
The classification section should be expanded to talk about the modern languages briefly.
There could be place for distinctions between modern IE languages (or IE groups), like why is a certain language in this group and not in this one.

Anyhow, these are minor adjustments that can be addressed thus popping the article back in the GA nomination in a matter of weeks. It is a well-written article, almost POV and really researched. Lincher 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost POV? Gee, thanks... Angr (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read Almost NPOV, I suspect. Eluchil404 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed for another article

I wrote that all consonants in Indo-European languages are pulmonic in the International Phonetic Alphabet article. Is there a resource tha can back this up? I know it's true (unless I missed some sort of obscure dialect), so I was wondering if any of the sources here back up this statement. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of India

So, the new length section on the "Out of India" hypothesis says, in part: "postulating that Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European". If this is actually a correct description of the Out of India hypothesis, then it does not deserve the lengthy writeup that it receives in this article, since the postulate "that Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European" is known to be false. AJD 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements suggested

Couldn´t someone who knows more than I make a "Common features" part, telling what is special with the Indo-European languages, compared with other language groups?