Talk:X-bar theory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a quickfail. This article looks right, smells right, tastes right... But the problem is that neither I nor any other reviewer can make much sense of it.

Criterion 1a links to Make technical articles understandable, which states:

This article has sat 30 days longer than any other GAN, and the reason is likely that no reviewer feels capable of reviewing it. Adding explanations, even if only in the lead, that are more understandable will vastly help. You seem to have good, reliable sources and a grasp of the source material and theory—the article itself seems fine—but it's too technical right now for our readers.

My only other comments at this time are:
 * I tend to request alt text for all images in a page for accessibility reasons. Though not strictly a GAN requirement, I often bundle it with copy changes I look for in articles in order to encourage skilled editors to learn about alt text. The figures here would benefit like any other image, though I'm not very sure how alt text would look.
 * Certain sources repeated several times with different page numbers, such as Araki, may benefit from the use of shortened footnotes. See WP:SRF for a guide.

I would love to come back and review this article once changes are made to address the technical language issue. It may be appropriate for me or any other future reviewer to work with someone from WikiProject Linguistics in addition to the nominator.