Talk:In the Land of Invented Languages/GA1

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

Reviewer: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 02:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll get started on this pretty shortly here; excited for this one as it's a bit out of my wheelhouse. After a very brief scan, I wonder if this article might benefit from the segregation of primary and secondary references like many of the Tolkian GAs (Ent, Ainulindalë, Éomer as few of many references. Would be good to know your thoughts before I dive in. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 02:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for picking this up! There are a lot of ways to handle plot citations and their nonfiction-media equivalents, and it's basically by-author determination -- I tend to an "uncited summary, unspecified p/s in ref footnote" style, which is considered equally acceptable and done at FA level (e.g. Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication). I think CC's preferred style requires use of sfn/harvnb/similar 'abbreviated/academic footnoting' formats, which I don't really like in the Wikipedia context -- general readers have (ime) a harder time associating them to the content, and they're also harder for newer editors to "learn by example" from in the edit window. Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vaticidalprophet perfectly fair, I'm sold! I should be able to get the first read-through done in the morning. Fritzmann (message me) 03:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Starting on the review now.

Content

 * Link University of Chicago, possibly spell out Master of Arts instead of M.A.
 * Linked, spelled as "master's degree" instead for improved recognizability. Vaticidalprophet 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is "Deaf" intentionally capitalized since it is referring to the cultural grouping instead of the medical condition?
 * Yes, hence pipe to Deaf culture -- I'm not sure that's the ideal pipe, but it seems wrong to use lower-case 'deaf' for Gallaudet, especially when referring to why a hearing person would go there. Vaticidalprophet 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "In the Land of Invented Languages was her first book" perhaps something like "was the first book she wrote/published/authored"
 * "She is also certified as having a basic understanding of Klingon by the Klingon Language Institute" I love this fact and the way it is so dryly stated. Who could have guessed this is an actual thing?
 * The first sentence of the synopsis is a direct copy of the lead. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but I wonder if the lead could be trimmed by removing the authors of the conlangs and just listing the languages, since the full authorial attribution is given just a few paragraphs later.
 * Yeah, I cobbled the lead together after the fact because Writing Leads is Hard. I've trimmed it, though this does result in the somewhat suboptimal solution of crediting Wilkins (because his language is known by his name) but no one else. Vaticidalprophet 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On that note, is there a reason why the creator of Klingon is not named as well? I assume it's Roddenberry but I honestly have no idea.
 * Klingon was made by Marc Okrand, who is credited later. I've named him in the synopsis opening paragraph, because yeah, probably a lot of people just assume it was Roddenberry (and even having some sense it must've been made by someone with an understanding of linguistics, I wasn't sure who before reading the book myself). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Okrent chronologies conlangs..." is chronologies the correct word here?
 * I think links to the conlang and author in the quotebox would be appropriate
 * Prist and Vela don't have articles, though I'm not sure if that's "non-notable" or "no one's written them yet" -- it feels right on the border, going by my preliminary research when writing this. (More accurately, it feels like one of those cases where if anyone did write anything they didn't bother to put it online, even in archival form.) I don't currently feel there's enough for a redlink, but I'm still looking. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If your judgement is that they wouldn't need redlinks that is plenty for me Fritzmann (message me) 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "The first full section revolves around An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, Wilkins' explication of his "ideal language"." I can't articulate why, but this sentence was particularly difficult for me to wrap my head around despite not being super complicated. I think it is the long and complex title with a comma in the middle that is throwing me off. I wonder if perhaps it could be written in a way that would mitigate the confusion caused by the clunky title
 * For each of the conlangs, I would appreciate some more emphasis placed on the real-world timeline. Just a brief mention of when the language was created / its creator was alive would help to give the reader a great deal more context. I know the article is about the book, but the synopsis also serves as a summary of these six conlangs in its current state, so it should also strive to do that well.
 * They're in chronological order, so I've tried to give approximate senses of 'when' (e.g. mentioning the 17th and 19th centuries for Wilkins and Esperanto respectively, wartime and midcentury dates for Blissymbols). I notice now you say that how decontextualized the Loglan/Lojban one is, though. I'll see what I can do about that one. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Much needed context now added, looks good Fritzmann (message me) 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "conlanging" is this a real word? I think "creating conlangs" or something similar would suffice
 * It's a real word! I did waver on whether it's encyclopedically ideal, but the sentence was already at risk of becoming clunky and it's a recognizable term to many of the readers who would read this article. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen the word "wherefrom" used before, but I would be remiss to criticize its placement here
 * "beneath the dead bodies of soldiers who had captured him in battle, who commandeered them for "posterior uses"." this needs a rewrite; did the soldiers capture him? What does posterior uses mean? It can't be what I'm thinking. When did the soldiers die? This tidbit just needs some clarification. Alternatively, it could be cut; I'm not quite grasping the relevance of the anecdote.
 * Oh, it means what you're thinking. Hence "gold out of dung"...I do really want to mention that, because it's a great example of how ridiculous much of what's chronicled in the book is. (I had to cut this opening paragraph for length; I mourn it.) But yes, it's a bit clunky. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not super intimate with the requirements for references in synopses, but would that anecdote require a reference? Is Okrent the one using it for illustrative purposes or did it come from somewhere else?
 * Okrent is using it illustratively, but it's from Urquhart's writings...somewhere. "Posterior uses" she's quoting directly from him, partially as an example of his ridiculously obtuse language (our article on him references it a little). I generally try to quote direct citations, so yes, will look back at that one. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds much better now Fritzmann (message me) 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "including an uncertain but likely in the thousands number" is quite clunky
 * Where did Zamenhof come from? I may have missed something but context on him (it?) seems very absent. Ah, looking back I can see he was earlier mentioned as the author of Esperanto. An aside re-mentioning that fact would be helpful here.
 * "estimates of Esperanto speakers number in the hundreds of thousands" there have been hundreds of thousands of estimates of Esperanto speakers?
 * Blissymbols section actually made me feel quite sad. Very well written, it does seem rather ironic that the creator of a language despised when it did what languages do best and adapted with its users.
 * "When Okrent managed a grammatically-accurate translation of a single sentence, she reported it to a Lojbanist group at a convention, who informed her that it was incorrect." Love the blunt but humorous phrasing here
 * "interlocutor" could stand to be changed, as much as I appreciate its use here and recognize the irony of continually asking for the simplification of language in an article about a book on linguistics.
 * Is there any more information on the "artlangs" or does Okrent only give them a brief mention? That was the only part of the synopsis I thought could stand to be expanded. Also "artlang" should probably be referred to as its full name first, which I assume would be "artistic language" or something similar
 * Would a brief mention of the subject matter of her second book Highly Irregular be appropriate? Especially since it is a redlink
 * "feeling it addressed artistic language as "a mere postscript" compared to conlangs intended for real-world use" ah, that would explain it. Perhaps just acknowledging that the mentions of these artlangs was brief in the synopsis would suffice, then
 * "The book has reportedly been used in linguistics courses at several universities." and the source for this is the interview with Okrent? Beyond that the claim seems out of place here.

Overall, an incredibly rewarding read. I've not checked references or the other GA criteria outside of content and will do so in another run-through after the content criticisms are addressed. If you wouldn't mind striking through the points that have been addressed/acknowledges and giving a brief reply of the changes (or lack thereof) made in response, I would greatly appreciate it. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 14:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I've replied to roughly the first half of these (will get to the rest). Many are further questions, e.g. trying to work out what the ideal way to phrase an odd sentence is -- I tend to a more 'communicative/dialogue' style at GAN both as a reviewer and a nominator -- but I've also implemented a few without changes, and have some more I'll look back over. I don't generally reply to/address everything at once, because I like spending some time to think about solutions. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, all of the changes or rationale for keeping things as they are make perfect sense so far. If any clarifications are needed I'm happy to do so! Fritzmann (message me) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cited the quotes properly now, I think, and will go double-check that I define 'artistic language' properly in prose. My main queries are about the Esperanto-speaker estimates and the use in courses. I do think the latter is worth mentioning, though I'm not sure where else to mention it. The speaker estimates...are hard, because estimates vary so much on this subject. (Frankly, "hundreds of thousands of estimates" is a valid reading...) This is especially true on the native-speaker one, where there's a verifiability-not-truth issue re. the frequent claim of 1000 native speakers, which is commonly repeated but makes no statistical sense (it seems to be butchered from "1000 families" to "1000 individuals", and also is from 1996). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Re the Esperanto speaker estimates, if that is not a focal point of the book then I would not worry about including it at all. My inference (not having read the book, mind you) is that Okrent is focusing more on the fact that there is a community of speakers that are thriving, rather than delving into approximations about how large that community is. Perhaps just changing the paragraph to be structured around that focus on the community rather than its size could solve the issue. Fritzmann (message me) 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restructured this a little -- how does it look to you now? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 04:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, perfect; I think that flows much better. Fritzmann (message me) 16:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think I've wrapped this up now -- I've generally redone most weird-terminology (I think I have the "posterior uses" sentence much clearer now :P ), and I've added context in decontextualized spots re. her second book, why the artlangs section is shorter, etc. Is there anything else you think worth noting? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, too. Another readthrough yields no other prose issues. Earwig gives a similarity of no more than 27%, and the similarity with all of the sources comes solely from the lengthy title of the book. However, a spotcheck of the digital refs did give me a question - for 20, is the link correct? I didn't find any mention of Okrent or the book; it seems like it's just an FAQ. The only other thing was whether any of the other sources say that the book is Okrent's first. It isn't an issue that her autobiography is used, but if a review or something just outright says that it is her first book I think that might be a better use of the source. Once those little things are taken care of we can get this all finished up. Fritzmann (message me) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For #20, the way the refs are set up there might not be ideal -- sorry about that! That ref backs up what PW starred reviews represent (that they're rare and given only to a subset of high-quality books, as opposed to PW's generally prolific reviews); I've seen some other sources giving more precise estimates (around the top 5% of books), but not as RS. The PW review itself is cite #17, which is at the end of that sentence. I wasn't certain when writing it if this was the best way to set that up, but I did want to give the context that PW starred reviews are unusual. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, now I see. Yeah that's totally fine I just totally missed that that was what the reference was referring to. That was the last thing I had so I'll go ahead and pass the GA! Pleasure working with you! Fritzmann (message me) 20:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)