Talk:Syntactic Structures/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 23:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 21, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: I read sections on the talk page, "Assessment comment", "Readability statistics for reference", and "Review". As well as "Followup to review". The article has only improved since then. The intro is of appropriate length and good writing style. The background section is excellent context. Overall readability level is good. So glad to see editors assessing articles they've worked on with a mind for readability, what a nice thing to see.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Minor quibbles here. I moved some uncited stuff to the talk page. Only was a sentence or two, probably easily addressed. Some of the footnotes don't have citations at the ends of them to back this up. This is okay for now for good article, but strongly recommend you get on that to improve verifiablity even more. Why I am saying it is okay is because in the few cases it looks like only used in the form of "see also" for helpful other wikipedia articles. But still need cites at the ends of those to improve them for people that want to check and verify that info later.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Boy is the article thorough ! I see that research gone into it includes at least 75 citations and 42 footnotes. I think the size of the Background section is appropriate here. I really really like the "Impact on other disciplines" in the "Reception" section.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article presents the contextual importance of the work, grounding this in background to introduce it to the reader. It is an important and scholarly academic work, and therefore stating this as so is not a neutrality problem. The article is indeed NPOV in this manner.
 * 5. Stable? Talk page shows some really good and unique collaboration regarding article readability and improving that for the reader, which is great to see. Really an interesting discussion to have, that should be had on all article talk pages during the improvement process. Recent article edit history for the past couple of months only shows good improvements by the GA nominator. Not seeing any stability problems or edit conflicts or talk page conflicts.
 * 6. Images?: Three images are used in the article. 2 are hosted on Wikimedia Commons and are okay there. One is asserted as fair use and has good fair use rationale on its image page. If anything, the article could do with a free-use image of the author, if possible.

Simply excellent, amazing research and writing work overall. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Sagecandor (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)