Talk:British National Corpus

British National Corpus was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 10, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

English Language

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BNC links to Wikipedia

BNC links to Wikipedia here. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding illustrations

Hello! Do you have any comments on the picture? What it need to modify? Whether you have objections to add illustrations to the article? What section of the article is more suitable to accommodate illustrations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexchuvak (talk • contribs) 10:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

There are too many section divisions as is, many with less than a paragraph of content. Instead organize the content by its main themes and connect them into paragraphs that cohere, ideally with transitions between ideas within a theme. czar 23:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National Corpus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I resolved some minor flow and punctuation issues. Some of the material is still contained within very lengthy, technical sentences; however, I feel that this is partially unavoidable.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section is appropriate; I removed a template that indicated otherwise after reference to the MoS section WP:LEADLENGTH. I also corrected a couple section headings.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
There are about 3 primary sources cited out of a total of 32 references; in general, references are WP:RS including many academic citations. Well done! I removed a twitter citation, and replaced it with a primary source.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The section "A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora" copies material from an abstract verbatim. It would not be an appropriate quote; please summarize the research in a short paragraph. Using the paper titles as section headings is somewhat awkward; consider replacing them with a short new heading suitable to the research. The section "Non-sentential Utterances: A Corpus Study" similarly copied from an abstract. I've removed the copied material for now; it would be great if someone familiar with the content could summarize and paraphrase, and re-add it.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
This is incredibly detailed. Well done!

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I cut down a little bit of puffery in the future work section (which I added a heading for). I think it's alright now.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Once the copyright violation is resolved, this can be promoted to GA. Very good work overall! I am sorry that I cannot review the Russian version, as I can't even read Cyrillic.

Comment from another editor: Additional verbatim copyright violations are apparent when running Earwig's Copyvio Detector against this article; especially from this abstract; the worst of these would all need to be rewritten. —Prhart com♥ 12:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's been addressed on the copyvio front. I double checked it myself and it's definitely significant enough to be failed just on that basis, so doing so now. Wizardman 16:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - thank you. FalconK (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]