Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-27/Featured content

← Back to Featured content

Discuss this story

Really nice page... full of featured information CutestPenguin ^discuss 10:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The description of George Formby is grammatically incorrect and seems to be missing a word. I'm not being picky because it currently makes no sense.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think is incorrect about it? - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's grammatically correct in the UK, but to me it should be saying "The producer reckoned without the cheeky grin and the ingrained need of the British to have double entendre and smut in its cultural output" followed by a complete sentence, which never happens. And the rest of it isn't a complete sentence either. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you've identified: it's in British English, and therefore may use differing grammatical rules than you're used to; having re-read it, it is grammatically correct, and isn't missing any words. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might as well be German because I have no idea what it says.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: if you can't understand something as basic as that, then you'll not understand the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to diagram that sentence and it is at best a terrible run-on, or a bunch of comma splices, but probably is missing some subjects. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... another American voice: are there any British English speakers who would care to comment? - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence says that the producer reckoned without (i) grin, (ii) need for smut, and (iii) ukulele, played well. It is grammatically impeccable, certainly; it is also, I should have thought, incapable of being misunderstood by anybody who has a working knowledge of English, but evidently I'd have thought wrongly, unless one inclines to the view that anyone who imagines "to diagram a sentence" is good English is ipso facto not in that category. (To be fair, I've just looked up the word in the OED, which mentions its use as a verb, as an Americanism.) I think we'd better stick to the English language written by an English writer for this English subject. Tim riley talk 07:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*I think my mistake was in assuming Southern United States usage (there may be another article about our way of talking) but that use of "reckon" would never be used on Wikipedia without quoting. I would still have to go the article to find out what the heck is being said there. But for now I won't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I chuckled at that. All is now clear. Yes, two nations divided by a common language, yet again! Tim riley talk 20:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A shame, Vchimpanzee, it really is very good article about a very accomplished—and much adored—entertainer. – SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]