Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English interjections/archive1

English interjections

 * Nominator(s): Brett (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about interjections in the English language, words that most users of English Wikipedia use all the time but know little about. It has had good article status for roughly a year and is one of very few good articles dealing with a topic in linguistics. English grammars generally give very short shrift to interjections, but there's actually a good deal to say about them. I asked User:Jimfbleak to have a look to help me prepare the article for this nomination, and he has kindly made some helpful suggestions which have improved the article. Brett (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the article dont meet the FA inline citation requirement Buidhe public (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Featured article criteria 1c is usually interpreted to mean that all prose content in the article is supported by an inline citation, including at minimum one citation at the end of each paragraph and image captions that contain information besides identifying the subject of the image. The article currently doesn't make it clear what source supports content like the second sentence in the following paragraph: Some verbs are formed from interjections meaning "utter the interjection", for example, he humphed and sat down or I shooed them out the door.[10] These can be distinguished from interjections by their ability to inflect for tense. If there is no source that directly supports the content, it is original research which is not allowed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this! The relevant citations are given below in the section on morphology. Should these be repeated here or used here and omitted in the morphology section? Brett (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ideally the article is organized so as to minimize repetition of the same content. If it can't be avoided, I would copy over the citation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a cross-reference to the appropriate section. Brett (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The "Typical examples" table seems to be slightly messed up. "no" occurs twice, and the position/count of some of the less frequent interjections do not match the source. – Elisson • T • C • 14:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The second no is due to the way the data is automatically tagged in the corpus. The first no is tagged as in interjection, while the second is tagged as an interjection or possibly an article (e.g., no bananas). Ideally, there would be a single no with 281,120 tokens + x% of 18,949 tokens, but x is unknown. As for the counts, the data was copied and pasted from the query results at the time so the discrepancy is not a typo. A possible explanation is that new texts were added to the corpus since the search was conducted.
 * The token count isn't particularly meaningful in itself, so perhaps a good solution would be to replace the table with an ordered list. Thoughts? Brett (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, though when I follow the reference I don't see a second "no" anywhere in the list. I was assuming the corpus had been updated until I noticed that the token count of many of the most frequent interjections had not been changed. I.e. how likely is it that new data was added that more than doubled the count for "o" while not adding a single "yes", "oh", or "ah"? Anyway, I agree that the count is not that important, but it's also not completely unimportant as it says something about the relative frequency of the most common interjections. I don't have a strong opinion, as long as the list does not contain two "no" (which will confuse people). :) – Elisson • T • C • 18:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. I don't know why the query results are not entirely consistent. I have changed to the table to a list, removed the counts, and hedged the language slightly. Brett (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi Brett, this is not a typical FA subject by any means and it would be good to see it thoroughly reviewed here but unfortunately it's not getting enough traction after more than two weeks to justify leaving open. Given the lack of in-depth commentary I'd be prepared to waive the usual two-week break before another FAC nom but I would suggest trying Peer Review first -- if anyone comments there you can invite them to visit the FAC nom when you start it. Also be great for you to look over more current FAC noms yourself, commenting as you see fit, to get a feel for the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)