Talk:British National Corpus/GA1

GA Review

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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):

4. 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.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. 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. —Prhartcom♥ 12:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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