Wikipedia:Peer review/List of plain English words and phrases/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone! New article; looking for a fresh pair of eyes. How can it be improved? Right now it's substantially complete: almost 400 entries, each with at least one cite (with page numbers for paginated sources). Fluous (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments from EddieHugh The major problem you have is explaining why these words should be replaced. With no justification, no mention of context, etc., the reader is left to wonder who this list is for: would people whose first language is English regard "room" as equal to "accommodation" (maybe I want a cottage), "accomplish" to "do" (ignores the element of achievement), "address" to "discuss" (maybe there's only one person; it can be a noun)? Maybe you can find a way to address this in the section before the list, but it seems a challenging task.
- Reply from Fluous Hey, Eddie. Thank you for your review! I think those are fantastic ideas. Thanks to your input, I realized three things: (1) Right now, the reasons are footnoted; but nothing connects the footnoted reasons with plain English! There's an inferential step that should be made explicit. I will make it explicit with a short section explaining how plain English avoids the footnoted reasons: verbosity, cliché, jargon, etc" (in more detail, with a link to the main article about plain english, which needs to be expanded). (2) I'll have to review the references to see which problem words are problems in limited contexts. And then make sure that limitation is stated. (3) Related: for clarity, the part of speech should definitely be added to every entry. Thank you again; just the sort of fresh-eyed view I was looking for.
- Comment: I would also say that this seems somewhat unencyclopedic at the moment. It read more like a style guide or essay. It doesn't give any substantive explanation of why these words might be preferred, or any context. It also comes across rather "POV" since it doesn't discuss possible downsides or alternatives. The word choice right now makes it seem like any other style of writing is bad or confusing. Bottom line, more context is needed, and the article should come across as less of a POV push. --Peregrine981 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)