Talk:Morphological analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Morphological analysis as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.

This article is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering.
	Please note that the use of Wikipedia to host this project has been questioned. Please read this discussion and, if you wish, contribute your thoughts there.

CCA result

Contents 1 The Morphology article needs an overhaul 2 Exceedingly Dense 3 Diagram Problems 4 Tagging for style improvements (buzzwords)

[edit] The Morphology article needs an overhaul

The article on Morphological analysis started out as a relatively simple reference to Zwicky’s ideas, a definition of the process, a few references and some external links. I did not initiate this, but whoever did referred to me and the Swedish Morphological Society. This was fine with me: I went in and added a few details which I though relevant to the subject, but more or less left things as they were.

Then, a Mr. I. Tjahyo Sarwono came along with some very complicated diagrams, rather poor English, misinterpretations and explicit errors (a parameter he mistakenly calls a value, and a value he calls a parameter). I am in despair over this, as I don’t want morphological analysis to get a bad name because of a sloppy Wikipedia article. I would like to go in and give the article a major overhaul – but I don’t know what the policy is about throwing out other contributors’ texts and diagrams. Can someone give me some council?

Tom Ritchey -- The Swedish Morphological Society.

• If bad text and diagrams weren't thrown out by someone, they would accumulate and Wikipedia would drown in garbage. Experts, in particular, should be encouraged to be bold. You seem to be an expert, and the reasons you state seem concrete and appropriate. (Besides, the material won't be thown out entirely, since it will still reside in the history.) -- Harold f 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exceedingly Dense

This is an interesting, but exceedingly dense and not at all public-user-friendly article. A more public friendly rewrite is probably in order. Ask yourself if the average reader could figure out how to do even a simple Morphological analysis from this article. I think it unlikely. - Vedexent 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. The article should start with a simple example.

[edit] Diagram Problems

The diagram seems to (I think) make specific references to numbered sections of the article. This is poor design as

1. Not all users have the auto-numbering turned on in their preferences. I am one, which is why I'm not 100% sure that these numbers in the diagram are referring to sections, but if they are not then they are meaningless and should be removed anyways.
2. The structures of Wikipedia articles are fluid and evolving. There are no guarantees that the sections will remain as initially laid out.

- Vedexent 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging for style improvements (buzzwords)

I added this tag to the article. Passages like:

MA concerns the arrangement of objects and how they conform to create a whole of Gestalt. The objects in question can constitute a physical system (e.g. anatomy), a social system (e.g. an organisation) or a logical system (e.g. a language or system of ideas).

strike me as saying very little, and saying it in a highly generalized and exceedingly abstract way. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)