Talk:English language/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 15:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

More to come: this is an article that I shall need two or three goes at. These comments cover the text down to the sentence ending with reference 178.

First and most serious objection: the article lurches from BrEng to AmEng and back again in the main text. We start off in BrEng ("organisations"), and then switch to AmEng ("labeled") and thereafter we have a mish-mash of center, centre, characterized, colonisation, colored, fueled, neighbour, organisation, programme, signalled and a promiscuous array of ise/ize endings. As far as I can discover from the revision history, the earliest revisions in which it was evident which variety of English was in use were in 2003-04, where BrEng is used ("cosy" "glamour"). If that is so, BrEng should continue to be used throughout the article, unless there is a consensus to the contrary: see WP:ENGVAR.

The article has always claimed to be BrEng, that was something that I could not in my own writing live up to, so since I write in a complete mixture, and sections have been written by Americans and Brits respectively. It is a good point that we should do a thorough copyediting for Engvar issues, particularly if someone nominates for FA, since it is not one of the GA-level MOS requirements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to correct the mismatched spellings before the article meets the GA criterion "the spelling and grammar are correct". I don't think it would be exceeding my brief as GAN reviewer to undertake this myself if wished, and I'd be happy to do so. Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EngVar issues or consistency in otherwise correct spelling are not part of the GA criteria. But I warmly welcome you to do the copy-editing changes that you find necessary, including grammar and wording and content changes. I would not feel that overstepping at all, merely welcome collaboration in the project of making the article as fine as possible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through the text minutely just now, and am pleased to find that someone (WeijiBaikeBianji, I think) has dealt thoroughly with this. The spelling is now, I believe, all Anglicised. Excellent! We couldn't have passed an article for GA that didn't know how to spell centre/center. I'll resume a close reading of the rest of the article tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 14:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erutuon beat me to making most of the spelling changes to conform the whole article to BrE spelling. That was always our intention. Like Maunus, I have read enough books from all over the world and have used software with spelling checkers set to differing standards long enough that I am now confused about which variant spelling belongs on which side of the Atlantic, but I will continue to use an off-wiki spell-checker applied to successive versions of the article to attempt to keep the spelling consistently British. I deeply appreciate the thoughful suggestions for improvement of all aspects of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other points down to ref 178:

"In 1755 Dr. Samuel Johnson" – see WP:CREDENTIAL and consider whether the "Dr" is wanted here.

Sure, will remove.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"some popular commentators in Britain" – it seems to me to be stretching the word "popular" beyond reasonable limits to call Leech and Mair et al "popular commentators". Applying that traditional test, what "the man on the Clapham omnibus" thinks, I don't imagine you'd find "popular" was the mot juste.

The point is that Leech, Mair et al attribute this view to "popular commentators".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. One wonders where they found such a thing as a popular commentator on the Eng Lang, but your reply suffices for present purposes. Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"descendants of Englishmen" – and Englishwomen, too?

Will change to "English ancestors".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Linguist Braj Kachru" – it is, to put it mildly, unfortunate in an article about the English language to run across here (and elsewhere in the article) the use of the false title, which is deprecated by the majority of authorities on both sides of the Atlantic.

I will add the title it after Kachru's name so as to satisfy your aversion to preposed titles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is not the only victim. Poor David Crystal is also false titled. But clunky does not equal ungrammatical., and I allow that this is not a deal-breaker at GA level. Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in descending order… Ireland (4.2 million), South Africa (4.8 million)…" – either the order or one or more figures must be wrong here.
countries such as Poland, China, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Egypt – any reason for this order rather than alphabetical?
"centered around" – regardless of how you spell centred/centered, "centred around" is widely viewed as a solecism. I think that view is rather silly, but it is undeniably logical, and I recommend dodging the question by writing "centred on", which seems to pacify those who boggle at "centred around".

good point, will be fixed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Subordinate clauses may functions" – should this be "…may function"?

Of course, will be fixed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"that shows that the clause that follow" – "follows"?

Will be fixed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"to day" – unwanted space in mid-word?

Will be fixed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"an auxiliary verb, so it is not possible" – are we quite happy to use "so" as a conjunction?

I am.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not a sticking point at GA, so san fairy ann. "So" wasn't a conjunction when I was taught English, but that was a long time ago, and doubtless "nous avons changé tout cela". Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that I am also fine with any other proposed wording that conveys the same meaning. Do you have a prefered conjunction in mind? "thus" maybe? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"auxiliary verbs an the to copula verb to be" – I struggled with this. Is it what you meant to say?

I will fix that botched sentence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"to still show inflection" – another superstition, very foolish, is that one mustn't split an infinitive. You'd be amazed how many otherwise sensible people still hold this daft view and will sniff at the article for including the construction. Better to avoid it.

I think it exactly a point not to placate that type of daftness, by showing that it is a perfectly permissible construction used by all speakers and most writers, and encouraged by most contemporary English grammarians.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutist point of view, but a perfectly fair one. Tim riley talk 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More as soon as possible. I shan't put the review formally on hold until I have completed my comments. – Tim riley talk 10:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough read-through. I have addressed most of the minor grammar comments, except for the split infinitive which I would rather keep. I would be willing to add a note following the split infinitive mentioning that the usage is deliberate and why. Indeed, perhaps an entire section on Style and grammar peeves might be warranted as it does have a substantial literature. I don't feel capable of resolving the engvar ambiguities, since my own usage is thoroughly bastardized, maybe @Erutuon: would be able to help us out with implementing Br.Eng throughout?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be familiar with all British–United States differences, but I just did all the obvious changes: -ize > -ise, center > centre, -el- > -ell-, -or > -our. — Eru·tuon 19:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very helpful comments. I have an off-wiki spellchecker that should be able to check the article text for conformance to British spelling conventions. I'll address the issue of the order of listing countries that teach English as a foreign language, and other points mentioned in sections I have worked on. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments

Word formation processes – just a suggestion that you replace "cell phone" (a term unique to the US, I believe) with a term familiar in all varieties of English
Word origins – citation needed for the last sentence. (There are a few earlier paras that lack citations, but nothing contentious or likely to be challenged, in my view, and I don't think action on them is necessary at this level.)
Africa, Caribbean and Indian English - last para: "individuals" or "individual's"?

We're nearly there, I think. Tim riley talk 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the first two (that's a section I worked on) and I'll look at the third (which another editor wrote). Thanks for the further comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Maunus fixed the issue about the word "individual" in that recently shortened section on Africa, the Caribbean, and south Asia, which I just retitled for parallel subheading titles with other subheadings at the same level in that article section, doing a quick copyedit along the way. Just before that I fixed the issues you mentioned in the Vocabulary section. Please let us know if there is anything else to fix. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary

I think we're there now. On a final read-through I find nothing that seems to me to fail the GA criteria. The article is comprehensive, balanced, well sourced and cited, and in English that could do with a polish here and there but suffices for GA.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations to all the major contributors to this Everest of an article. Tim riley talk 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]