Talk:English language/GA2

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

The article deals with a great variety of topics. The accentuation is maybe not ideal, maybe not sufficient for FA, but for GA that would be sufficient. The only objection related to coverage is that the “Grammar” section is too short, even though there is an extra article on that. It must be quite a bit longer, address typological issues, include some info on sentence pattern types, information structure etc. etc. A compensatory shortening could be achieved by deleting “number of words in English” which is a bit shallow at the moment. You would want to know with how few words you can do in everyday speech, how the number of compounds in American English relates to idiosyncratic lexical items in British English etc.

A far more serious objection is that most of it is under-referenced: History, Classification and related languages, English as a global language, Dialects and regional varieties, Phonology (no single reference!) etc. etc.

And finally: the reference list is a mess: some sources are given in the “Notes” section, some in “References”. That would have to be unified.

I don’t say that this article would be GA if these points were met, I would have to do a more in-depth review for that, but I think it is not unlikely. Anyway, the number of references to be added is too big to be taken care of in one week. I would have preferred to put this article on hold, but it would have to be on hold for too long. Thus, I fail it. If the grammar part is enlarged and the number of in-line citations is up to hundred, I would suggest to renominate it. G Purevdorj (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to improve this article. Persons have ideas that the content should be restricted in unique ways thus making quality fairly static. I made a good edit yesterday but it was making things "too clear" and "too general" for "this article. ~ R . T . G  10:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is common to specify in the lead section to say sth. about language family: "European" language is far less useful than "West-Germanic", thus too general indeed. The other changes were replacing a general picture with a historic sequency, which I agree is not so much "too clear", but rahter "too specific" for the lead section. But as I stated, the main problem of this article is referencing and the grammar part, not the intro. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know what a "sth" is. The other changes were a slight correction on the style. ?The only extra information added was "South-East England" and the date "1066" (1066 which I surmised should be entered seeing as the 5th century date is entered... "South-East"... why not? It's short sweet and true is it not?). Again, people do not read or else they talk crap. The paragraph is only 3 sentences. I think a cold shower for me this morning girls. People talk about anti-clarity and anti-specifics. Context and consistency are much more important. You put those two together with factuality and you have something. With crap you have nothing. Cya. ~ R . T . G  08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)