Talk:Arabic letter frequency

ظ

Interesting how the least frequent non-hamzated letter is ظ... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

Parts of the article are copy & paste from http://www.intellaren.com/articles/en/a-study-of-arabic-letter-frequency-analysis, the company gets linked to twice (the latter also in Frequency analysis), I wonder if they wrote it. --tickle me 01:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

propose removing POV flag and replacing it by something milder, like a request for additional sources

This POV warning template was attached two years ago mainly because the material seemed to come from a single source. No one seems to have alleged that the article was slanted or biased as a result, and the subject by its nature is rather non-controversial. To me the introduction at least seemed well written, on-topic, and with no particular axe to grind. I therefore propose that the POV warning be replaced by something milder, like "additional sources needed". CharlesHBennett (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of the article was written by the unexperienced user:Einasmadi in late January 2011‎. He did some more editing in March 2011, when he also created the article now called Intellark. The creation of that article was rejected three times, with the comment "submission is written like an advertisement" even in the latest case.

The pictures shown form an important part of the Intellaren website, (which was created in late 2010), and were uploaded by user:Einasmadi as his "own work". The letter frequency analysis cites one "Mohsen Madi", and I find it pretty obvious, that it was he, who published his own work and tried to promote his company here as wikipedia articles.

This is no critique of the work shown in the article! After all that information is what I came her to find in the first place :-), and I would regret to see it go away. So I agree with User:CharlesHBennett that the POV tag might be replaced with a "Beware, Single Source" tag.

It might be quite difficult to find more sources, if, as Madi says on his Intellaren website, there are practically no other works of this kind. Which is what forced him to do the analysis in the first place.

--BjKa (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed/updated the tag to ask for more soureces, as I see no obvious problem with neutrality. I also removed a section about the Quran as it added nothing, exept that it is about the same (can be re-added as a sentenced) and a couple of external links, already on the related section - Nabla (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Experts and Laymen

The lists of characters would benefit from a transliteration readable by the general public. (see Wikipedia:Understandability) --BjKa (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that they're just pictures. A recreation as wikitable would of course be advantageous for that. --BjKa (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Company Advertising

From "External Links" I've removed the internal Wikilink

• New layout Arabic Letter Keyboard Intellark produces all 48 printable Arabic characters intuitively.

Something similar should probably be done about the "Figure 1".
--BjKa (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)