Talk:English interjections

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting this article to GAN. Unfortunately, this article is not ready for GAN and requires a quickfail per WP:GAFAIL. Specifically, it's a long way from meeting Criteria #3 neturality and also would require a lot of citation needed tags (at least 13 sentences). I've listed the issues below that I had found:

Attribution issues

Per Wikipedia:Quotations#General guidelines and WP:CITETYPE, it should be mentioned who said the quote. Without mentioning it, it makes it sound not netural. For example:

• "From a pragmatic point of view, interjections may be defined as a subset of items that encode speaker attitudes and communicative intentions and are context-bound." - As this is the first sentence of the Pragmatics section, this is the most concerning. Introducing a paragraph in a quote without attribution makes this sounds not netural.
• Otherwise I see several other quotes without indication in the prose who said these sentences. They are at Supplement (1 quote), Exclamation (1 quote), Interjections vs Verbs (2 quotes), and Interjections vs Liminial (2 quotes). With the Pragmatics quote above, this makes 7 quotes without attribution.

Editorializing issues

I see phrasing that makes this article sound like an essay, and not neutral. The three that stick out to me the most are:

• "As mentioned above, very little has been said about the syntax"
• "We also find conventionalized pairs"
• "Again, these have lost their core meaning" and "Again, these are typically used as exclamations."

Other non-netural wording include "Persumably", "Nevertheless", "Similarly", "literally" and "Broadly".

Non netural in Original research sentences - History in English section

• "Interjections are largely overlooked in linguistics in general, and English interjections are similarly ignored." - according to who? Without a citation, this isn't netural and is original research.
• "There is no substantial discussion of them in the six volumes of The Cambridge History of the English Language" - Original research as theres no citation discussing this encylopedia. Otherwise, "no substantial discussion" is not neutral as there's no citation.

Original research

Apart from the above, I count various sentences without citations:

• 1 sentence without citations: History in English, Supplement, Interjections vs other lexical categories, Interjections vs Nouns, Interjections vs Verbs, Interjections vs Liminial signs, Syntax, The external syntax of interjections, Semantics, Morphology, and Phonology. Of these parts, The external syntax of interjections is the most concern as the entire section is unsourced.
• 2 sentences without citations: Interjections as heads of phrases

Overall there are a lot of neturality and original reserach issues. For neturality, there's phrasing like "As mentioned above" and "We also find" which makes this article sound like an essay. Throughout the article, there are several quotes that do not provide the author in the prose. Without attribution, it doesn't sound netural and makes it look like the opinions are by Wikipedia. The worst instance of this is the first sentence of the Pragmatics section, which introduces the rest of the section. For original research issues, I found 12 sections (in the original research section) that are missing citations. The worst issues are Interjections as heads of phrases (2 sentences without citations) and The external syntax of interjections (entire section unsourced). Finally, I found two instances in the History in English where there are both original research/neturality issues. Without citations, this does not sound netural and also is unverified. Therefore, I will have to quickfail this article due to the huge amount of neturality and original research issues. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions to help you determine what a Good Article requires. Thank you for submitting this article to GAN! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:English interjections/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 00:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Gug01, and I'll be conducting your Good Article review. Gug01 (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Brett: @Whmovement: A lot of the prose improvements have been made! Please address the edits regarding an important issue: "The article's subject matter overlaps significantly with the interjections article." Also, there are a few comments I made you haven't addressed - make sure you get those in. The sooner you address these comments, the sooner the review is complete and English interjections becomes a Good Article! Gug01 (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the items "3a" and "3b" on the rubric are the big things you have yet to address. Gug01 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: If I understand your point in 3a correctly, you are suggesting that the article should address what makes interjections in English unique. You are correct to point out that the article does not currently do this. It does, however, address aspects of English interjections that are not true of all interjections. For example, "There are a number of English interjections with religious connotations that are derived from nouns" is a statement that describes a feature of English interjections that is not true of interjections in all languages but that is not unique to English either because some other languages do this as well. The article makes such heavy use of the phrase "English interjections" because the features it describes are sources describing English generally or English interjections in particular. I'm not sure that I understand why it is insufficient to simply discuss features of English interjections that can distinguish them from interjections in other languages, something that this article already does. Are you looking for something like "There are a number of English interjections with religious connotations that are derived from nouns, a feature that distinguishes it from languages like Lushootseed that lack this feature." (I don't know if this is actually true about Lushootseed interjections--just an example.) Can you clarify? If I understand your point in 3b, the issue is that this article overlaps with the Interjection article. This seems to have more to do with the interjection article relying almost entirely on English than on the English interjections article describing interjections in general. The only real solution I can see to that problem would be to edit the interjection article. Is that what you are suggesting? Whmovement (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed two general claims about interjections from the English interjections article and I have added examples from French, Japanese, and Xhosa to the general interjections article.--Brett (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Brett: @Whmovement: I'm back! Please excuse my extended absence as I've been enormously busy. You've captured the gist of my objection and done a great job addressing it! The interjections article has a lot of work to be done; of course, you've volunteered your time to work on this article, and I shan't presume to stretch you more. Given that the situation has improved somewhat, I'm comfortable passing the article on 3a and 3b for the purposes of the GA-level; should this article eventually go to FA, the issue would have to be revisited and interjections would need further improvements to differentiate the two, at least in my opinion. Gug01 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	no - jargon, clarity, and spelling & punctuation mistakes almost yes - only a few prose changes left Yes! Great work!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	no - lead doesn't represent article, some word choices are questionable, essay-like tone Lead now complies, essay-like tone has been greatly mitigated
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	While I personally find the citation style awkward, it does match Wikipedia's style guide.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Unlike in the article's first (failed) GA1, the GA2 version has in-line citations in all relevant facts with proper academic sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	no editors eliminated phrases that sounded like original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The article no longer contains plagiarism risks, as concepts are heavily cited. There are also no images, meaning no risk of such copyright issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	no - the history of interjections in English, and in general how interjections function in a way that's unique to English, rather than just material for the general interjections article, isn't addressed in satisfactory detail Addresses English interjections as much as possible without venturing too deep into cross-linguistic interjection studies. Gug01 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	no - duplications of interjections, some unnecessary detail Given that the situation has improved somewhat, I'm comfortable passing the article on 3a and 3b for the purposes of the GA-level. Editors have added more non-English-specific examples to interjections and eliminated cross-linguistic, general interjections assertions in this article, reducing overlap. Gug01 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	no - not enough weight to consensus, essay-like tone Tone fixed after lots of editing and productive reviewer-editor collaboration!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images exist, so no potential for copyright violation.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not really sure adding images to this article would be helpful (maybe diagrams, I guess).
	7. Overall assessment.	A fine linguistics addition to Wikipedia's Good Articles. @Brett: congrats on your Good Article! Gug01 (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Quickfail?

Since this article has been failed before, I'll examine whether the reasons for prior fail are still standing. Gug01 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reasons for previous failure in GA1 and analysis of whether these are still standing:

Attribution issues

All quotes are now cited. Though the citation format is awkward, you've solved this issue. Great work! Gug01 (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Editorializing issues

Of the key phrasing that made the article essay-like, only one instance of "similarly" remained, which I've eliminated. Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Tone issues not explicitly emphasized in the GA1 feedback still exist; I'll discuss these later. Gug01 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-neutral / original research

You've fixed the GA1 shortcomings. Gug01 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Original research / argumentative

Previously-unsourced sentences and sections have been sourced or deleted. Gug01 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In conclusion, the GA1 feedback has been addressed. Though a lot work remains to be done to get to Good Article-level, it doesn't merit a quickfail anymore. I'm going to give a proper review so that @Brett: is able to further improve the article. Gug01 (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, there are four big themes to my comments:

1. The article has to be useful for the average reader with some interest in linguistics. Right now, we need to work together on concision and jargon.
2. The article's subject matter overlaps significantly with the interjections article.
3. The article must be written like an encyclopedic entry, not an argumentative essay.
4. The article has to cover the topic in an impartial and properly-weighted way.

Lead

"English interjections are words – such as yeah, ouch, Jesus, oh, mercy, yuck etc. – that belong to the lexical category interjection in English.[1]:1361" - This sentence is saying that English interjections are interjections in English. That's not engaging or helpful, not just for the laymen, but even for academic readers. Gug01 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Also, I'd suggest finding a different way to cite your sources that doesn't involve placing page numbers in awkward colons. Consider imitating the style of the Roman people article, which has a "citations" sections in author-date-page style and then a "sources" section giving full bibliography for sources used. Gug01 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree, but it's an acceptable citation format for Wikipedia. Per "Citing Sources", "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference" Whmovement (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said "consider". If the citation style isn't changed, I won't factor it into my final decision. It's merely an idea I put out there. Gug01 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Having followed the link for interjection, it seems that there's a lot of overlap between English interjections and interjections, to the point where the two articles may even be redundant. This isn't the fault of English interjections article, but rather the interjections article, but makes the very existence of the article a bit dicey. Gug01 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"For the most part, they do not enter into specific syntactic relations with other words." - "specific syntactic relations" -> eliminate the jargon, keep the meaning Gug01 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"Pragmatically, they perform a variety of speech acts, such as greeting or indicating affirmation." - this sentence is understandeable, but try to reword in clearer way. Perhaps, "Interjections fill several roles in English, including greeting and indicating agreement." Gug01 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"Semantically, they often have emotive or interpersonal meanings,[3]:221 and their use is sometimes called exclamatory[3]:145[5]:57" - add a period to the end of this sentence and eliminate the jargon Gug01 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The period was added, but the technical sense of these terms corresponds fairly closely to the everyday sense of the terms, so I'm not sure that there's really any jargon to eliminate. Whmovement (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "jargon" is the wrong term. I still find the article's opening sentence clunky, probably due to the nominalizations, though it is a great improvement from what was there before! Gug01 (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Morphologically, they are usually simple and do not inflect.[4]:106" - I assume you're using "simple" with a specific set of technical meanings in linguistics. Hyperlink to an article explaining this concept. Gug01 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Overall, this lead doesn't reflect the content of the article. Each major section (including stuff about history in English, typical examples, interjections vs other lexical categories, etc.) should have one corresponding sentence in the lead. Right now, only syntax, pragmatics, semantics, and morphology have a presence in the lead. Gug01 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"Semantically, they often have emotive or interpersonal meanings.[5]: 221  and their use is sometimes called exclamatory[5]: 145 [6]: 57" - the period is either in the wrong place, or there's a bit of the sentence left over from previous revisions you wanted to delete; not sure which. Either way, please rectify. Gug01 (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Done

History in English

"Interjections are largely overlooked in linguistics in general.[4]:101" - "in general" is redundant with "largely", eliminate

"largely" modifies "overlooked", and "in general" modifies "linguistics". There is not redundancy. Whmovement (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

" from the mid 1400s in Middle English discussions of Latin grammar." - hyphenate "mid-1400s" Done

"The word interjection appears from the mid 1400s in Middle English discussions of Latin grammar. An anonymous Middle English manuscript, for instance, offers the following definition of the term: "An interieccion ys a party of speche vndeclyned þat betokeneth passion of soule wt an vnperfete voys. (An interjection is a part of speech undeclined that betokens passion of the soul with an imperfect voice.)"[7]" - is this quote really necessary? To be honest, the definition makes limited sense and doesn't help someone who doesn't understand English interjections learn about the topic, and doesn't enrich the understanding of those who know what interjections are either. Gug01 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Y Gug01 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"but come to behave" -> "but can behave"

This suggestion dramatically changes the meaning. It's not a matter of whether secondary interjection can behave like interjections but rather that they begin as one class and become another over time. "come to behave" indicates this transition between categories over time. Whmovement (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Valid point. Keep this the way it is. Gug01 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This section is NOT about "history in English". It's more a history of linguistics, and how English linguistics has dealt with interjections, rather than anything to do with the history and development of interjections in English at all. Please rename this section to reflect this. Done

The historiography of interjections is less important to this article than their actual history. Consider making this section more concise & shortening it. Gug01 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Gug01 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition, a history of the development of interjections themselves (not classifications around them) is a needed section in this article that must be added for the article to have proper coverage. Gug01 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Interjection did not develop and emerge in English. They already existed in Proto-Germanic. Discussion of this seems beyond the scope of an article on English Interjections. Whmovement (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Poor phrasing on my part; I should've written "further" development to make clear I'm talking about further change, not interjections' original creation. I'm trying to get at the following idea - what makes interjections specifically in English unique? In other words, what merits having an article on English interjections versus interjections generally? (This isn't a criticism; it's an open question). Gug01 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: and @Whmovement:, perhaps the thing to do is rename the history section. We could call it something like "Interjections in English grammars". As I said above, I've removed from the section two claims that could be construed as general claims.

Yes! Please rename to "Interjections in English grammars." Gug01 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue of what makes a part of speech unique in a given language is a very difficult topic in linguistics. The traditional view is that the lexical categories are quite similar across languages. But some linguists like Croft take the position that there is no cross-linguistic consistency in lexical categories at all, that it makes no sense to talk about nouns (or interjections) in general but rather only about English nouns or Xhosa interjections. Most linguists are, perhaps predictably, in the middle, agreeing that it is still useful to talk about noun and verbs, while allowing that the category boundaries and the number of categories will vary from language to language. The point is that, to a certain extent, each language needs to be taken on its own terms.

What makes English interjections unique from German interjections will be quite limited. What makes them different from Pirahã interjections could be more dramatic (I have no idea about Pirahã interjections). But the point here is that you'd need to do an awful lot of cross linguistic comparison to establish the uniqueness of English interjections, and I think that would reduce the focus of the article.

I see your point and think you're correct. Gug01 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a short section on variation that shows some development over time in two particular interjections. This doesn't seem like it should go in the history section though.--Brett (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

"The term interjection is used here for a category of words, parallel to noun or preposition. These words may be appended to clauses as supplements or used on their own as exclamations. For the purposes of this article, supplement refers to a kind of syntactic function[1]:66 and exclamation to a kind of speech act.[1]:61" - jargony and difficult to parse. Please revise. Done

" For the purposes of this article, supplement refers to a kind of syntactic function[1]:66 and exclamation to a kind of speech act.[1]:61" - for the purposes of this article? This sounds a lot like an essay, where you propose a certain definition. But this is an encyclopedic entry, and the objective truth of what "supplement" and "exclamation" refer to with respect to interjections is necessary. Gug01 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

I suspect that this section exists by analogy with a similar section in English determiners. That section was necessary because the literature is not consistent in the distinction between determiner and determinative, and the article ultimately needed to make some choice. The same is not true about interjections, so I revised portions of this section and moved them to the syntax section, and then deleted the rest.Whmovement (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That explanation makes sense. The revisions are great, and I'm a fan of how you rejiggered and redistributed the "terminology" content. Gug01 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The supplements section is too unclear. Clarify the prose and provide examples of supplemental interjections. Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"The supplement function may be realized by other units, such as the underlined relative clause in She helped me a lot, which was very kind." - An example of a supplemental interjection would work wonders in showing me/the reader how the grammatical functions of a relative clause and an interjection are similar (beyond semantics). Gug01 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

The "terminology" section is very similar to the interjections article. Why is it uniquely important for an article purporting to focus on English interjections that is not interjections? Gug01 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Typical examples

"729059" - huh, that's honestly a smaller token count than I expected. Gug01 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Interjections vs other lexical categories

Consider changing "lexical categories" to "parts of speech" to reduce jargon.

Both options strike me as technical language, one in linguistics and the other in older grammatical descriptions informed by Latin. If both are jargon, it seems to make more sense to leave it for the sake of consistency with the rest of the article. Whmovement (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"The main difference, between these interjection and their corresponding nouns is that the interjections have been bleached of their original meaning.[15]:72" - Add a sentence explaining what "bleached" means in this context for our laymen reader friends. Gug01 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

The "Interjections vs. adverbs" does not actually delineate the borders between interjections vs adverbs, but just provides an example in which the division isn't clear. This won't do for the article. Condense this example to half its size, and add a paragraph in this section above talking about the generally-agreed upon delineations. If linguists don't agree on the difference between interjections and adverbs, then rewrite the section to reflect the uncertainty in the divisionGug01 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Rewrote the section to reflect the uncertainty in the division. Whmovement (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Interjections vs. various minor categories" - eliminate this category and create the categories "Interjections vs Fillers", "Interjections vs Routine formulae", and "Interjections vs liminal signs", treated at the same level as "Interjections vs verbs" Gug01 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"distinct prosodic and syntactic units" - jargon Done

"Daniel C. O’Connell and Sabine Kowal offer three reasons for treating interjections and fillers as different categories, however." - a bit non-neutral, wording might imply O'Connell is right. Perhaps reword to something like: "Other linguists, like Daniel C. O'Connell and Sabine Kowal, treat interjections and fillers as different categories, citing three reasons: first, interjections ...; second, ...; and third, ... fillers do not." Gug01 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"Routine formulae are traditionally categorized as interjections, but Felix Ameka offers three reasons to consider them a separate class." - again, non-neutral. If routine formulae are normally considered interjections, then there isn't much of a distinction to be made between to the two. At best, rewrite the section to emphasize the consensus, and then note that some linguists assign parameters x and y to divide routine formulae from interjections. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not an essay. Gug01 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

I believe one of my earlier edits may have led to some confusion here. I used the word "traditionally" to refer to "traditional grammar" but that can understandably be taken to imply consensus. I've reworded this and reworked the rest according to the above suggestions. Whmovement (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)  Done

Yeah, I really love the way you've reworked this section! I'm adding in a "done" marker here for you. Gug01 (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Liminial signs" - spelling Done

The "liminal signs" section discusses liminal signs, and it's unclear how it relates to English interjections. (Unless the liminal signs are interjections, which should be made clear.) Gug01 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Once again, the section seems mostly like a run-through of interjections in general rather than specifically English interjections. Gug01 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

Syntax

"The syntax of interjections is extremely simple." - is this a technical phrase? Otherwise, you can eliminate it. Gug01 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"not enter into specific syntactic relations with other words" - rephrase jargon. Gug01 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

I'm just going to start marking jargon and unclear phrases with the word "clarify" Gug01 (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"combine with an NP complement." - clarify Done

"CGEL, " - clarify Done

"interjection as a head of a phrase" - clarify. Also, make sure the sentence ends in a period. Gug01 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"may exceptionally" - "in exceptional cases" for clearer wording? Gug01 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

" at least one linguist " - who / how many linguists use this term? Is it just the thoughts of one linguist, or a major school of thought in the interjection field? Done

"(or possibly interjection phrases, see above) " - delete. Essay-like and not necessary. Done

"or as supplements to a clause (e.g., Mmm, I see. Alas! I can't. etc.)." - there's the example of supplement interjections! Love the examples here. Gug01 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Linguist Felix Ameka notes that, "from a pragmatic point of view, interjections may be defined as a subset of items that encode speaker attitudes and communicative intentions and are context-bound."" - clarify. Perhaps paraphrase instead of quoting.

Removed. That section of the source was describing interjections generally, not English interjections. Whmovement (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"have exclamatory or imperative illocutionary force" - clarify Done

Adjusted the wording and fleshed out the examples. Whmovement (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

" primarily interactional, providing the conversational management functions of backchanneling and marking affirmation.[22]:3" - clarify. Add hyperlink to "backchanneling" Done

" etc." - delete Done

"These can be offensive if used in the wrong context." - when is something like "c*nt" not offensive? Gug01 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed. This paragraph seemed to be based entirely on original research. Whmovement (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this section faces potential redundancy problems with the interjections article. Gug01 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semantics

"It can be said that interjections do not refer.[5] " - clarify Done

"Semantically, many express emotions such as anger (e.g., damn), disgust (e.g., eww, yuck), surprise (e.g., wow), regret (e.g., alas), or embarrassment (e.g., shucks).[24] They can signify pain (e.g., ow), bad smells (e.g., pew), a mistake (e.g., oops), or a sudden realization (e.g., eureka)." - clear, concise, and informative. Solid work here! Gug01 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Morphology

Once again, is "simple" technical? Otherwise, it's too vague as a word - find something more precise. Gug01 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

"but there can be some internal morphology". A cite right here would help. Even with your example, without a cite, someone could argue "heavens" and "heaven" are 2 interjections that came from nouns with internal morphology, but said morphology is no longer relevant. Gug01 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Done

I believe the point of the original was that these morphemes did, indeed, originate with the nouns. I expanded the explanation. Whmovement (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Phonology

Once again, the issue of potential redundancy with interjections comes into play. This section is in prose, not list form; other than that, it's very, very similar to "phonology" in interjections. Gug01 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Phonologically interjections or interjection phrases are often supplements or exclamations, and as such are typically separated by a pause from the other utterances with which they may co-occur, constituting a prosodic unit by themselves.[4]:108[1]:25" - it appears you're repeating content earlier in the article. Is that the case?

The earlier discussion of prosody has now been moved to this section. Whmovement (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The IPA symbols redirect to the IPA help page. Please link them to a sound file or to the dedicated articles for those specific phonemes/phones in Wikipedia.Gug01 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Though the IPA symbols themselves link to the IPA help page (which seems to be fairly common practice), the articles of the specific phonemes are already linked in the text itself (e.g., voiceless bilabial fricative) rather than the on symbols. Whmovement (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Conclusions from Round 1 of Review

@Brett: Right now, this article isn't ready to be a Good Article. However, I respect all the work you're doing to improve Wikipedia by creating this article, so I'm going to give you 7 days to address and/or respond to my comments. If you don't engage with the feedback in 7 days, I'll close the review.

If my feedback seems harsh, it's because I respect this article and your work and I'm taking it as a serious candidate for the selective "Good Article" title.

I use the table at the top of my review for final thoughts. If the article fails any one of the 7 criteria, it fails as a whole. I'm not going to fill out the checkmarks and crosses in the table yet, to give you time to engage with the comments; I will manually type "yes" or "no" decisions and my feedback based on what I'd say if I had to close the review today, for your benefit and understanding, but the comments in the GA Table aren't binding. Gug01 (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review! The timing is difficult as school has just started, but I'll see what I can do in the next week.--Brett (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem! School is starting for me tomorrow too. I can give you more time if you need it. Gug01 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gug01: I the points have been addressed. If you have a chance, could you have another look?--Brett (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Brett, I'll post comments here. An interesting article, but several issues with referencing.

• The script picked up that Bullokar, Murray, Jespersen, Huddleston and Quirk (at least) all have inappropriate links, better to have no link
• Several of your refs have bare urls that should be fixed eg All cited in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, e.g., heavens.
• OED online has a bare url that doesn't even work
• The American Heritage® not our job to indicate their ®
• Check formats, e g you have both July and Jul. You have locations for some, but not all, book publishers. Eg Murray Coulmas
• Your lead section is supposed to be summarising the referenced body text below, and therefore their should be few or no references in that section. Either you are putting in unnecessary references to material already supported in the body text, or you are referencing material because it doesn't appear in the body text you are supposed to be summarising.
• Why not link to the free e-book for Murray?
• Your final ref has no author or date. Also, why is this an RS source?
• I'll comment on the text later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• You should provide links or glosses for technical terms that may not be familiar to all readers, eg clause, phonology, inflection, parenthetical, and that's just in the lead. I suspect that most readers won't understand your footnote at all.

Thank you! Done--Brett (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Brett, the only variety of English you mention is US English, and although you have a Variation section it only mentions variations in the US. There is no mention of wider geographical variation, eg Caribbean Jeezam or Boxcova here, Indian English yaar or bhai here, Australian and British blimey and cor, eina in South Africa] Oi (interjection) in several varieties, Haba, kai, chei, chai and mtchew in Nigerian English here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A significant oversight, now righted. Thank you! Done--Brett (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You have Online and online, I've changed a couple to lc, but not all

this full text gives examples from a social, rather than geographical grouping

You need to link or gloss diachronic. Also, your diachronic example is from 17 years ago. I think you need to make that clear in the text, no reason to believe that pattern is unchanged

You don't seemed to have addressed my very first bullet point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for these! I've made some changes to address the variation section. As for linking, I removed the links to authors within the article. What's the benefit of removing them from the references, or am I missing the point?Brett (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I, and many other FA writers only provide links to full free text, although others provide links to pages that have an abstract. There is a script that highlights potentially troublesome links in various shades of pink, so these sources won't be overlooked. Usually it's because they are rarely RS, like social media, need further analysis like Forbes or are otherwise of questionable value. Take Worldcat; it may confirms that a book exists, which isn't required anyway, and wastes everyone's time because there is no relevant text at the end of it. Personally, I wouldn't link to snippets either because of geographical and temporal variations in what readers can see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The script, User:Headbomb/unreliable.js, for example, tags worldcat as a general repository which may contain self-published or predatory material.. On a different tack, "linguist" is a bit overworked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued engagement on this page! Sorry, I'm still not sure I'm getting it. I took your first bullet point to mean that the interwiki links like [[Rodney Huddleston]] in the text should be removed. Perhaps what you mean is that the links to the external sources themselves should be removed unless they are full free texts. Is that right? And, when you say "linguist" is a bit overworked, are you suggesting that it's best not to characterize the authors when referring to them in the text?--Brett (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Your second interpretation for the refs is exactly what I mean. It's correct to characterise your named people by their role, but I wondered if it was possible to have some variation from "linguist" every time, perhaps "language professional" or whatever. If you really don't think there is a sensible alternative, fair enough, I'm just raising the point for you to consider.

I don't think there is much else that I want to raise. Personally I would have had more examples of variation, but obviously your call. Before you go to FAC, go through your text in detail to see if there are any inconsistencies or minor errors. Be prepared for a grilling, after 70+ FAs I'm always surprised at what reviewers can find that requires improvement. While you are waiting for reviews, have a go at reviewing other FACs, it makes it more likely that people will review yours Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Jimfbleak! Brett (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)