Logba language was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Logba language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 20, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
The article is not broad in its coverage. There is no grammar section at all (although such research is clearly available) and the phonology section doesn't present the whole phoneme inventory. There is little information on history.
The phonology section doesn't provide in-line citations, but that's almost a minor point here.
I fancy that this article would have to be enlarged to four times its actual size in order to provide the missing information, thus there is no way to simply fix the issue and retain it as GA for the time being. G Purevdorj (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
