This article has been heavily rewritten, expanded, and sourced by
User:Ndsg. It has passed GA, and now we're planning on moving it up to FA. It has undergone a few changes, such as the movement of most of the spelling details to a new page, and the according section has been rewritten summary-style. We would appreciate any more advice from other editors about the article's quality, and how it can be improved. The ikiroid (
talk·
desk·
Advise me)18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
One quick comment on organization. I would put section Description behind section Compounds as words -- or maybe combine the two behind section History. Seems like Texts and Language learning should come later, especially since they introduce concepts (like T1, T3) which aren't explained except in Description. Overall the article looks pretty good, though. Technical details are treated pretty well, which is important. --
bcasterline •
talk19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Makes more logical sense to me. I still think Compounds as words could be combined with Description since it is a discription, but it's not a crucial point. --
bcasterline •
talk02:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I see it as more of a principle than a trait, since word compounding could theoretically be removed and the text would remain readable. It's also a bit more abstract than spelling conventions, since it concerns the morphemic boundaries in words, which have been historically debated in Chinese. The ikiroid (
talk·
desk·
Advise me)03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)reply