Talk:Esperanto

No Sources and Confusing Parts Etc.

The articles contains zero sources which is not good.

The "Goals of the Esperanto movement" is also slightly confusing and unnecessary. "The language" and "Grammar" are written similar to instruction manuals and are strangely structured. The "Technical Problems" is also too detailed. There should be a "History" section (similar to the one on the regular English Wikipedia). 98.203.152.242 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Translations

--Venca24 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

--Venca24 (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

GA comments..

Hello, here are my comments for GA:

• given the overall size of the article, the intro/lede should probably be bigger.
• There are many smallish (3-5 sentence) sections. This is not a requirement, but I think they should be merged into bigger ones.
• The sections on the alphabet and the grammar should probably go into an article on their own, they are too specific for the general-purpose article. - For this article, an example text (perhaps with audio) would probably be OK.
• Most languages (other than English have some form of diacritic characters, so is some of the criticism still relevant?
• Fix the few problems ("weasel word", "who",...), for example in the criticism section

I have to say, that the last bigger changes on this article were done in 2019, There were few changes in 2020, and 2021.--Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias

I have to say that the whole article is biased, and generally lacks balance. It does not answer (or even ask) the unspoken question: "Well if it's so good, why is it almost unused except by specialist enthusiasts?" There are also a host of other attempts to create an international language (such as Interglossa by Lancelot Hogben). None has been widely taken up. Instead, English and Mandarin have increased their hold on the world. From its first appearance to today, this is an unbalanced page by an enthusiast. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)