Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pronunciation of GIF/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2022 [1].

Pronunciation of GIF

[edit]
Nominator(s): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it pronounced "gif", or is it pronounced "gif"? No one knows! But people seem to have very strong opinions on it, strong enough that many dictionaries, linguists, journalists, and even the White House took notice. The result of that ripe-for-Tumblr chaos is this article, neatly summarizing quite a few months' worth of research. A warm thanks to Kavyansh.Singh for helping me take this through these last few steps before nominating, as well. This is my second nomination—fingers crossed, and thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from buidhe

[edit]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "words like flibbertigibbet and tergiversate, both pronounced with a soft g, were included in the list of 68 soft gi words. When this factor was adjusted for," - unclear what "this factor" is. Presumably it's that some very obscure words were included in the analysis.....?
  • "usage [....] were nearly the same" - singular/plural disagreement
    • Changed the whole sentence to When the prevalence of each word was taken into account, it was found that the hard and soft g appeared in nearly equal frequencies in gi words.
  • "when one is first encountered with" - don't think this is a valid construction. "When one encounters" would be appropriate.
    • Ah, yeah, done
  • "2.8 percent favored an enunciated GIF" - what is meany by "enunciated GIF"? Saying each letter individually?
    • yep, changed that to favored enunciating each letter. Side note: do you have any idea how much it's killing me to not be able to use favoured?
  • "Wilhite's speech upon the accepting the award" => "Wilhite's speech upon accepting the award"
    • whoops, thanks!
  • "while Cambridge Dictionary of American English" - I would say this should be "while the Cambridge Dictionary of American English"
    • fixed!
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eviolite - support and source review pass

[edit]

Interesting article. Taking a spot here for comments/source review, which I should be able to do as it's relatively short; please ping me if I don't get back within the week. eviolite (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing (Special:Permalink/1074747033):

  • 6) I am pretty worried about the use of what basically amounts to a self-published Github Pages blog post - while the author does seem to have the credentials (though doesn't have an article themselves), the post isn't peer reviewed or anything; WP:SCHOLARSHIP suggest secondary sources are preferred as well. If the research is important enough to cover a good few sentences in the article, I would expect there to be at least news articles discussing it, which should be cited instead.
    • After the spotcheck, I see now that most of the info before this reference is actually in McCulloch's Mental Floss article, but as I mention in the bullet point right below this one, I'm not sure if it's reliable enough.
  • 7) Same issue as above (Mental Floss is not particularly reliable itself), though if kept I'd recommend adding author-link=Gretchen McCulloch. Since the info covered by this ref is a theory with no empirical evidence, per WP:DUE there should be mentions of it in reliable sources.
    • Hmm. I definitely hear you, but I think it scrapes by as an expert self-published source. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Both McCulloch and Dow fulfill that requirement handily, they are experts on the topic. It's true that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, but I don't think any exceptional claims are being made here, and certainly nothing involving BLP. If you're looking for WP:DUE, it has two paragraphs on the more reliable side of Ars Technica where it's called an "incredible explainer". A bit flowery, but I think this is a pretty legitimate usage, if a little overwrought. Would you be all right with adding the Ars Technica source in some way and downsizing the explanation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 and 15 are cited polls so even though the sources may not be "high-quality reliable" in general, this use's probably fine. It should be clarified though that the StackOverflow poll specifically asked software developers (as mentioned in the text of the survey results, and as SO is after all a developer site.)
  • 17) The Wire should be The Atlantic Wire (the article on The Wire is about a completely different publication)
  • 19) The WP:RSP entry on The Daily Dot recommends demonstrating due weight; given that, I'm not sure if the comment about government insight is necessary. There are other RSes discussing Obama's statement[2][3] but none of them mention the earlier post. Van der Meulen does mention what seems to be a different Tumblr post (different date) saying the same thing, but I can't find it - maybe the paper's referring to one of the posts that just mirrors the Q&A session.
  • 21) I don't think Dictionary.com is actually published by Random House, just that the content is based on their dictionary (similarly, I don't think there is a "Dictionary.com Abridged" to differentiate the unabridged version from).

Text-source integrity (spot checks): Chose 15 references at random.

  • 8 (van der Meulen pp. 2, 5):
    • Page 5 verifies that system arguments are most common, and Page 2 verifies what system arguments are - good.
    • However, for all of the van der Meulen references, I would recommend using the page numbers on the text itself (i.e. within the journal) rather than on the PDF (so 46, 49 in this case) in case of other formats (like having a copy of the entire journal issue.)
  • 16 (van der Meulen p. 1):
    • The source specifically says that Wilhite "seems to be" the first to give usage advice, rather than it being an assertion as the WP article does.
    • I can't see where "The immediate audience reacted positively to this short speech, but it generated controversy online, where some pushed back against Wilhite's pronunciation of his file format" is in the paper. It seems that this is in the NYT source, though, so the [1] reference there should be moved down a sentence.
  • 15 (Stack Overflow):
  • 21 (Dictionary.com):
  • 22 (Cambridge Dictionary):
  • 5 (ABC Radio National):
    • The article credits the statement that "most people" use hard g to "the author of an encyclopedia of image formats", not Wilhite.
      • I mean—we can't just assume that it'd be weird to anonymously credit an image file format creator for a standalone quote when an image file format creator is named in the previous paragraph? I just assumed that quote was a coy way of referring to Wilhite. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 (The Economist):
    • Not a text-source integrity thing, but is there any reason The Economist is not linked in the article?
    • For the first use of [4], the wording is pretty similar, but I don't think there's any other reasonable way to word it so it should fall under WP:LIMITED. (Maybe change "lack"?)
      • I mean, I changed it to "go without" and "are short of", but now I feel like I'm in Harry Potter and side characters don't do so well in that book.
    • Second use is fine. I assume the last sentence, about developed countries, comes from the stacked bar chart rather than any text.
  • 11 (Gizmodo):
    • Good
  • 23 (Merriam-Webster):
    • Good
  • 1 (New York Times):
    • First use: it doesn't technically say "looped", but it's really minor and you can probably find a billion sources which do
    • Other uses are good (with the caveat that the third use should be shifted down a sentence, as mentioned above)
  • 6 (Michael Dow):
  • *Apparently nearly everything mentioned before this reference is actually only in McCulloch's article (no mention of 105, 68, 37, "flibbertigibbet", "tergiversate", or one-syllable words in Dow's post). The reference [6] should probably be moved just after the first sentence in this paragraph, then.
    • For the portion after the first sentence, it is entirely verified by McCulloch, but I'm still left a bit confused since the original post seems to come to different conclusions (unless 6.03 and 5.17 are considered "almost exactly the same", or, as always, I'm missing something.)
      • I think what McCulloch is driving at in the next
  • 10 (van der Meulen p. 5):
    • I don't think the source backs up that this argument is "common". It gives one example of a frequency analysis-esque argument, and it mentions that only "in a few rare cases" is an entire linguistic system considered, which I would assume is a superset of frequency analysis.
      • Hmm, all right. I've made some changes there, if you want to take a look.
  • 12 (van der Meulen p. 4):
    • The source says 65.2%, not 62.5%. Siri is mentioned, but not Amazon Alexa.
      • Ah, damnit. Fixed that! 00:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I would recommend moving the first use of this ref to after the sentence ending "favored a soft g", to be clear that said sentence is verified by this source and not [11].
  • 17 (The Atlantic Wire):
    • Good

That's all; no particular comments on prose right now, but I do have concerns with sourcing and referencing. eviolite (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, eviolite! I think I've responded to everything, but it looks like we'll need to discuss a bit more. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies and edits - I've struck out the ones I consider resolved (and also the ones that were fine to begin with, for clarity), and will leave comments down here:
    • Didn't realize that Dictionary.com was using a template. I see where it says Dictionary.com Unabridged now, but still remain unconvinced that it's published by Random House, so I've raised it at that template talk page; not an issue for here.
    • For the ABC Radio one, the quote specifically says "the author of an encyclopedia of image formats", not "the author of an image format".
    • I don't think your comment "I think what McCulloch is driving at in the next" above went through correctly - not sure what you were trying to say.
    • My concerns regarding frequency analysis still remain; maybe the changes didn't save
    • In the new LA Times ref, Rodriguez is misspelled
    • Overall, I think this review really hinges on the suitability of the Dow and McCulloch sources for a FA. I suppose given the caveat for experts in SPS they might be fine, but again the fact that the two articles don't back each other up is concerning (you probably had something to say there, but it got eaten). The Ars Technica source you linked is the only other one I could find that mentions it, and I think it would be wise to cut down on the specifics of the analysis to reflect how much the RS gives (some is likely still necessary to explain what's going on and the inconclusive conclusion/coin flip is fine, but the specific numbers maybe not so much). I'm not super happy, but that'd probably be good enough for me; I'm not super familiar with the FA criteria and will also of course see what others think about it.
    Regards, eviolite (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    eviolite: it's not that the comment got eaten as much as I forgot to finish it. so – fun stuff :)
    • Ohhhh. Okay, I was reading "encyclopedia of" more like "plethora"—e.g. that wilhite invented a bunch of them. That's so weird, why would ABC phrase it that way? I've corrected it. Fixed rodriguez and the frequency analysis sentence, too.
    • re McCulloch: I think the specific log frequency calculation you might be looking for isn't explicitly in the original paper. McCulloch talked to Dow before writing her mental_floss article.
      • Original research: One possibility is that when you add the two log frequency calculations in the paper together, they pretty much cancel each other out. When gi is in the initial position, the log frequencies are 6.03g compared to 5.17j. When gi isn't in the initial position, the log frequencies are 5.2g and 6.06j. If you added those together, you'd get 11.23g and 11.23j.
      • In any case, there are lots of things in the mental_floss article that aren't in the original blog post.
    So, I'd be okay with paring it down, but I'd like to see if there's consensus on how much and what first. Happy to go with the flow :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the comment. I'm satisfied with the whole Dow/McCulloch thing for now, again with the caveat that others are likely more familiar with FA-level sourcing than me. I'm still not sure about Another common "system" argument is frequency analysis, which examines how many other words in the English language employ hard or soft g pronunciations in other situations, similar to Dow's analysis though (as I noted above, the source seems to only give one example, and looking at it again, I don't think "frequency analysis" is the right term as that specifically relates to cryptanalysis.) eviolite (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    eviolite ah, gotcha—fixed that one! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, frequency analysis is pretty common outside cryptanalysis, as far as I know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article only covers cryptanalysis use cases of it, so maybe the general letter frequency is a better target for that link. Anyway, that's not a big deal at all, so I'm happy to support now. eviolite (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, interesting. thanks for the thorough review, eviolite! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

[edit]
  • In the "Analysis" section, the name "Van de Meulen" appears often with different capitalizations of "Van". In the second sentence of "Polling" it is lowercased at the beginning of a sentence, but it appears capitalized mid-sentence in the pie chart caption. Don't see any MOS guidance right off the bat here, but it should at least be consistent.
  • Steve Wilhite could be piped to "the file format's creator" in the lede, more of a personal preference though.
  • ...linguistic analyses show that there is no clear advantage for either main pronunciation based on other words in the English lexicon. - I assume "advantages" in this case is meant to mean advantages in an argument?
  • Opportunity to include an example of a GIF in "Background"?

This is all for a quick skim; will continue later. AviationFreak💬 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again, AviationFreak :) I didn't want to pipe the name, since Wilhite comes up enough to be important, but not often enough to be easily memorable throughout the article. Other than that, I think I got it all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, glad to hear you remember me :) - No worries about not piping. I've looked over the article a second time and the only thing I note is that the "van" is uncapitalized at the beginning of the second sentence in "Polling". I think that even for a name that would usually be in lowercase, it should be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. AviationFreak💬 21:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AviationFreak: ah, oops–fixed, i think! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I am happy to support. /ɡɪf/ to the grave! AviationFreak💬 02:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank ya thank ya! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a455bcd9

[edit]
  • The article seems focused on the Pronunciation of GIF in English (lede starts with: The pronunciation of GIF in the English language has been disputed since the 1990s.). However, French, Spanish, Finnish, and Arabic pronunciations are briefly mentioned in "Background". The pronunciation in Asian countries is also mentioned in "Polling" but we don't know if it's about the pronunciation in English or in the respondents' native language. So should the article be renamed "Pronunciation of GIF in English"? Or the article expanded to cover other languages? (e.g., according to the Russian edition: "В русском языке файлы в формате GIF обычно называют «ги́фками».", without source)
  • Stackoverflow's Developer Survey Results 2017 are available for download under the Open Database License (ODbL). So we could (and should?) make an SVG version of this map and add it to the article.

A455bcd9 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: Thanks for weighing in! So, there's no simple answer to either comment here, but I'll do my best.
re globalization: Arguably, a representative sample of global literature on the topic is biased towards American English. The GIF was invented relatively recently (1987) by an American programming team, as was the acronym and its intended pronunciation. To the extent that the GIF appears in other languages, it's a loanword. To me, at least, that's why I couldn't find much in the way of foreign-language work on the pronunciation. I included any useful foreign-language sources I found, but my assessment of the available literature is that this is primarily an English thing that happens to branch out into other languages. So, i've cut "in the english language" from the lead sentence, but I don't think there's a need to contextualize more than that.
As for the graph... sigh, easier said than done, but I'll do my best. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmph. What irks me is the knowledge that the dataset returns three values; the number of people who use the hard g, the number who use the soft g, and the number who enunciate each letter (and the number who use something else). Yeah, I could just use the hard g/soft g numbers, but that'd exclude the reality that quite a few countries prefer that pronunciation over both hard and soft g. What I would love to do is assign each percentage to a red, green, and blue value, to let one graph represent all three important percentages. e.g. India is 16.51% hard g, 28.07% GIF, and 55.43% soft g. So, that would come out to 16.51% red, 28.07% green, and 55.43% blue, or  . Or, if we were to grade on a curve so that the highest number gets 100%, it'd be  . That'd be pretty hard to read for most, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put a listing of all the colours in my sandbox. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes foreign-language sources may be harder to find. Here's what I found after a quick search on Google.
The two reference French dictionaries mention the word: Larousse and Robert. They both agree on the "ʒif" pronunciation (see: File:LL-Q150 (fra)-LoquaxFR-GIF.wav). So Some in France instead opt for /ʒɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) is incorrect (I've never heard any French speaker pronouncing it like that and the [ɪ] vowel sound doesn't exist in Standard French according to French phonology) and the file should be replaced by the correct one.
In Spanish it seems that the word is pronounced "heef" (source) or [xif] (source).
In Dutch, "gif" [ɣɪf] originally means "poison" (source) so there's maybe a different pronunciation to disambiguate.
In German, the pronunciation is slightly different than in English and seems to be with a hard g only (File:De-GIF.ogg).
Regarding the map: you're right, it's maybe too complex if there are 3 options. We could use hard g/soft g numbers only (like The Economist) and add a symbol on each country if a third option is popular (>10%?) there? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the dictionary section has room for expansion, but I wouldn't be comfortable on relying most of these sources (except the french, that looks good). I'll keep brainstorming on the map. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question @Gog the Mild: I don't oppose this nomination. The article seems good but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say it meets all the criteria to be a featured article. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, I can see you added back "in the English language" in the lede. What do you think about the following modification for the lead? The pronunciation of GIF [] has been disputed since the 1990s. GIF, an English acronym for the Graphics Interchange Format, is popularly pronounced as a one-syllable word. The most common pronunciations in the English language are /dʒɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) (with a soft g as in gin) and /ɡɪf/ (audio speaker iconlisten) (with a hard g as in gift), differing in the phoneme represented by the letter G. [...] Modern English dictionaries generally accept both main alternatives as valid, and linguistic analyses show no clear advantage for either main pronunciation based on the frequency of the pronunciation in other English words. Pronunciation also varies in languages other than English. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Could the issue with the Englishness of the article be fixed by simply renaming the article something like "Pronunciation of GIF in the English language", with other languages being mentioned in a "In other languages" section (or the like; that's just a rough idea).--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) As Theleekycauldron noted, this does seem to be a largely English issue that has radiated out to other languages.--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

[edit]
  • This will mainly be feedback on how the article reads to me Mujinga (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilhite can be linked at the picture caption
  • "Similar acronym discrepancies arise with NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pronounced /ˈnæsə/) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, pronounced /ˈneɪtoʊ/)" - it strikes me to make this sentence globally accessible, then it would be great to be able to listen to the pronunciations of both acronyms
    really, this thing isn't gonna be an FA unless I get over this cold? okay, I'll try to clear my nose/throat in a couple hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga: Added an audio file for NASA (although it's a little NASAlly). NATO is tricky, though, because there's the formal and colloquial versions of the pronunciation. Which do you think I should go with? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe it's best to use more from the sources. McCulloch says "acronyms aren't always pronounced like their roots (the "a" in NATO isn't the same as the "a" in Atlantic)" and vd Meulen says "Proponents of the [dʒif] pronunciation, on the other hand, point to acronyms like SCUBA, in which the first vowel is always pronounced as [uː], even though the corresponding word, ‘underwater’, is pronounced with an [ʌ]: ‘It's not Jraphics Interchange Format by that logic, NASA would be pronounced Nay-sa and SCUBA would be pronounced Scuh-buh’ (DHCKris, 2015)" Mujinga (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga Well, I did already invoke scuba, but I beefed it up a little. I think I got the rest of the citation changes below- i'm sorry these are taking so much back-and-forth. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link The Economist in text
  • "incidents" reads like a bit of a list, which of course it is. but maybe some of the small paragraphs could be brought together and linked up
    I linked a couple of 'em, does it work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York Times faced some light criticism" - from who?
    added "on social media" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • do dictionaries need their own section?
    put it in "analysis"—seems good there, and at least it stops that pie chart from overflowing into the next section theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webb, Tiger (August 9, 2018). "Is it pronounced GIF or JIF? And why do we care?". ABC News. Archived from the original on December 29, 2021. Retrieved December 28, 2021. - something garbled there with the wikilink which shows ABC News (Australia)| right now
  • are the second two mentions of Oxford University Press not linked on purpose?
  • Dewey, Caitlin (December 4, 2013). "'Jeopardy' has conclusively settled the GIF pronunciation war". Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 4, 2022. Retrieved March 3, 2022. - should 'Jeopardy' be written Jeopardy there?
  • Buck, Stephanie (October 21, 2014). "70% of People Worldwide Pronounce 'GIF' With a Hard 'G'". Mashable - likewise should % be percent here?
  • titles of references can be converted to house style using https://titlecaseconverter.com/ (tick the wikipedia style) - this tip was recently shown to me by SusunW
    • hmmm when i use the the convertor it gives for example "It's settled! Creator tells us how to pronounce.." → "It’s Settled! Creator Tells Us How to Pronounce.." Mujinga (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Mujinga, the citation case is consistent with the style I prefer (which is allowed per MOS:CT and MOS:VAR)—sentence case for newspapers and journal articles, title case for books. Is there a specific inconsistency you have an issue with? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style seems the relevant link for that, seems OK.
        Looking at the references as they are now, I would suggest translating the Dumazet title and these dictionary links are not consistent: Dictionnaires Le Robert (in French). / Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. / Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. / Merriam-Webster / Oxford Dictionaries Online. Oxford University Press / Éditions Larousse (in French). Some say online, some don't. A publisher needs a location as well. Dictionary.com has n.d., the others don't. Mujinga (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        made some changes to the citations (and some root templates)—anything else needed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it's annoying when the templates lead to inconsistencies. The Dumazet should be in French then with the translated title [in square brackets] that much I do know.
        For the dictionary refs, I had a quick look but don't really see the policy guidance I'm looking for which is how to quote an online dictionary. I still feel it's inconsistent that some refs say online, some don't. To go one by one:
        • Dictionary.com - this one seems fine, marked as online in the ref
        • Cambridge dictionary has three definitions, from Cambridge Business English Dictionary, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and one which is not referenced, is that what you have given as Cambridge Dictionary of American English? The text mentions only two definitions. If you are purely using this online version, is it better to take out the publisher and mark it as online?
        • Merriam-Webster i think should be marked as online in the ref
        • Oxford dictionaries doesn't seem the best way to refer to Lexico which says "is a new collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP) to help users worldwide with everyday language challenges. Lexico is powered by Oxford’s free English and Spanish dictionaries". So better to ref as Lexico instead of piping in the ref and mark the ref as online
        • New Oxford American Dictionary not sure why in the refs this becomes Oxford English Dictionary, that's actually confusing when there are other Oxford dictionaries. Shouldn't the cite be on the authors?
        • Dictionnaires Le Robert - this is the publisher and shouldn't be italicized, the dictionary itself is Petit Robert. If you are using the online version it should be marked as online for consistency.
        • Same with Éditions Larousse, which is the publisher and the dictionary is Petit Larousse Mujinga (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mujinga: I believe this should work, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice one for the changes, getting there I think. If you want to stick with "The French Dictionnaires Le Robert and Éditions Larousse list only [ʒif] in their entries" in the text I'd suggest "The French publishers Dictionnaires Le Robert and Éditions Larousse list only [ʒif] in their respective dictionary entries". For "online Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries" I'd suggest "online Merriam-Webster and Lexico dictionaries" and now I'm confused by "The New Oxford American Dictionary gave only the soft g pronunciation in its 2005 edition but added the other pronunciation in the next edition, listing the soft g pronunciation first" since the 2005 edition is The New Oxford American Dictionary but the other one is Oxford Dictionary of English so I'm not sure if it's actually the next edition. If you want to keep the dictionary name in the references that's fine by me, as long as it's consistent. Mujinga (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mujinga: done! I decided to use the dictionary names, instead of the publisher names (for the French). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Phew I think that's it then! Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Mujinga! Fixed everything I haven't protested against here :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look now Mujinga (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RiP Wilhite. Article seems improved, two of my comments are not yet resolved, I've marked them as still open Mujinga (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two issues are resolved so switching to support. Mujinga (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update to @Gog the Mild: seems we've about wrapped up this section :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-checks not included.

@FrB.TG: both done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to a topic I know nothing about. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

TOC

  • The headers are extremely short, and would not tell much about what to expect, which is fine for the subheaders, but I believe that Analysis and possibly Incidents and Cause might profit from a bit more to-the-point descriptions.

Cause

Incidents

See also

This "war" (really?) seems a bit much ado about nothing, but a fun read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pronunciation_of_GIF/archive1&oldid=1080388326"