Aramaic language

This previously failed the FAC process ( archived discussion from December), but has vastly improved since. It is very well researched, comprehensive and includes excellent sound samples in ogg format. It is also a successful example of the recently more dynamic peer review process. See the article's peer review entry here. Gareth Hughes has really done some impressive work on this. Not a self nomination, but I was minorly involved in its peer review process. - Taxman 17:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd recommend shortening it by spinning off some subarticles, but still support. Everyking 17:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support — I've put a fair ammount of work into this article, and felt it was still incomplete when it was last put up for FAC. It had a very good and positive peer review, and I now feel it's ready to be listed here. One constant comment is about the length of the article: I did spin off Biblical Aramaic and the Aramaic of Jesus (these two things dominated the old article) as well as separate pages for each of the modern Aramaic languages. I hope the history sections put the language in good context, but I feel that a history of Aramaic article might rob this article of its context. Gareth Hughes 18:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support: A very good article overall, one of the few things I thought could be improved would be to add a map of the current geographic distribution to the "Geographic distribution" section. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:24, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Support. Even last time I thought this was excellent. A map would be cool, though. - Mustafaa 05:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One more that makes me so proud of Wikipedia; this is a magnificent article. Thanks Gareth! Agree with Mustafaa and <insert unspeakable username here> that a map really would be cool, though I understand that's difficult. — mark ✎ 16:59, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work. Perhaps a lead can be expanded, though. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)