Talk:X-bar theory/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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 Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, which states:

Most Wikipedia articles can be written to be fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability and motivation. Some articles are themselves technical in nature and some articles have technical sections or aspects. Many of these can still be written to be understandable to a wide audience. Some topics are intrinsically complex or require much prior knowledge gained through specialized education or training. It is unreasonable to expect a comprehensive article on such subjects to be understandable to all readers. The effort should still be made to make the article as understandable to as many as possible, with particular emphasis on the lead section. The article should be written in simple English that non-experts can understand properly.

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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.