Talk:English interjections/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting this article to GAN. Unfortunately, this article is not ready for GAN and requires a quickfail per WP:GAFAIL. Specifically, it's a long way from meeting Criteria #3 neturality and also would require a lot of citation needed tags (at least 13 sentences). I've listed the issues below that I had found:

Attribution issues
Per Quotations and WP:CITETYPE, it should be mentioned who said the quote. Without mentioning it, it makes it sound not netural. For example:


 * "From a pragmatic point of view, interjections may be defined as a subset of items that encode speaker attitudes and communicative intentions and are context-bound." - As this is the first sentence of the Pragmatics section, this is the most concerning. Introducing a paragraph in a quote without attribution makes this sounds not netural.
 * Otherwise I see several other quotes without indication in the prose who said these sentences. They are at Supplement (1 quote), Exclamation (1 quote), Interjections vs Verbs (2 quotes), and Interjections vs Liminial (2 quotes). With the Pragmatics quote above, this makes 7 quotes without attribution.

Editorializing issues
I see phrasing that makes this article sound like an essay, and not neutral. The three that stick out to me the most are: Other non-netural wording include "Persumably", "Nevertheless", "Similarly", "literally" and "Broadly".
 * "As mentioned above, very little has been said about the syntax"
 * "We also find conventionalized pairs"
 * "Again, these have lost their core meaning" and "Again, these are typically used as exclamations."

Non netural in Original research sentences - History in English section

 * "Interjections are largely overlooked in linguistics in general, and English interjections are similarly ignored." - according to who? Without a citation, this isn't netural and is original research.
 * "There is no substantial discussion of them in the six volumes of The Cambridge History of the English Language" - Original research as theres no citation discussing this encylopedia. Otherwise, "no substantial discussion" is not neutral as there's no citation.

Original research
Apart from the above, I count various sentences without citations:
 * 1 sentence without citations: History in English, Supplement, Interjections vs other lexical categories, Interjections vs Nouns, Interjections vs Verbs, Interjections vs Liminial signs, Syntax, The external syntax of interjections, Semantics, Morphology, and Phonology. Of these parts, The external syntax of interjections is the most concern as the entire section is unsourced.
 * 2 sentences without citations: Interjections as heads of phrases

Overall there are a lot of neturality and original reserach issues. For neturality, there's phrasing like "As mentioned above" and "We also find" which makes this article sound like an essay. Throughout the article, there are several quotes that do not provide the author in the prose. Without attribution, it doesn't sound netural and makes it look like the opinions are by Wikipedia. The worst instance of this is the first sentence of the Pragmatics section, which introduces the rest of the section. For original research issues, I found 12 sections (in the original research section) that are missing citations. The worst issues are Interjections as heads of phrases (2 sentences without citations) and The external syntax of interjections (entire section unsourced). Finally, I found two instances in the History in English where there are both original research/neturality issues. Without citations, this does not sound netural and also is unverified. Therefore, I will have to quickfail this article due to the huge amount of neturality and original research issues. Please take a look at Good article nominations/Instructions to help you determine what a Good Article requires. Thank you for submitting this article to GAN! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)