Wikipedia:Peer review/English language/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I think that this deserves to be a good article, although, I want other people's opinions. I would like advice on improving the page.
Thanks, Lucky102 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Review by Maunus
[edit]Thanks, I'm starting the review below:
General critique: Overall a lot of good information. However too much detail and attention is given to certain parts (specifically vocabulary and etymology) over others (e.g. grammar and internal variation). This makes the article come across as very lopsided. Many parts of the article also become lists of facts rather than readable prose and therefore are of limited value to the reader who just wants a general overview.
No adequate definition of English is given in the article. English can mean a lot of different things - it would be good to define the concept early on in the article situating the meaning of English as a general concept with concepts such as dialect/language, World Englishes, Old vs. Modern English.
1. History this could be expanded with subsections for the major periods. Incorporate some of the material on history of vocabulary that has to be removed from other sections.
2. Classification. Approximately six times too long. Huge amounts of unnecessary detail and comparison. Way too many examples. It also goes far too much into language history, describing contact with Norse and French which has nothing to do with classification. And giving a general description of proceses of language change. This section should only state the its status within Indo-European and Germanic, perhaps with one or two examples no more. This information can be much more effectively conveyed graphically as a tree phylogeny. All information about the history of the language should be in the history section.
3. Distribution. A map would be good. It would be good to get rid of the embedded list which breaks up the reading flow. Split it out to its own article and summarize it in prose. The same goes for the list of countries where English is a major language - this should all be written in prose form. And it is not necessary to mention each country when regions can be given. Aim to give a summary of the general distribution rather than a complete list of locations. English as a global language needs to better give a demonstration of what the global status of English means for seeing English as a single language - information about and examples of world Englishes and English based creoles and pidgins should be given. Lists of relative numbers of L2 speakers in different countries
4. Dialects and varieties. Here we want examples of dialectal differences. Too much attention to simplified and constructed forms of English.
5. Phonology. Good section - would be good to have introduced the differences between major varieties before giving the phonological differences. Presentation of vowels breaks the reading flow.
6. Expand to give a complete summary of the grammar. It has to be at least as long as the phonology - preferably twice as long.
7. Vocabulary. Way too long and detailed - split into a daughter article and summarise this information in one or two paragraphs. Question of number of words is largely irrelevant and even if considered relevant receives way too much attention. All the subsections on origins should be shortened to one section summarizing them.
8. Missing sections: World Englishes, subsections for major dialects and varieties, subsections in the history period, Subsections for morphology and syntax. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)