Talk:Khmer language/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maunus (talk · contribs) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Review

I'll review this article over the next weeks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Will need some tightening for FA quality, but is definitely well enough written for GA.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: I think the Lead could do better as a summary of the entire article, but it is adequate for GA.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   I think some additional high quality sources would be good- Haiman 2011, Jacobs & Smyth 1993, Bisang in Sidwell & Jenny (2015) would be really useful sources. Many uncited statements in the phonology section. I was happy that Haiman 2011 was of use. I still think most of the "further reading" should eventually be incorporated as cited sources, and that a bibliography with linked harvard references would be an improvement. This is irrelevant at this point however.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The phonology section is much more (I would say too much) detailed than the grammar section, which is inadequate. Given that khmer is an isolating language it is really not acceptable that there is no description of basic syntax, and no examples of sentences. There is no overview of grammatical categories, and no description of how grammatical relations are expressed (not to mention pragmatic functions), and no overview of different types of sentence construction (interrogation, imperative, subordination, relative clauses etc.) At this point the grammar section is amazingly well developed, and probably even on the long side. For FA I would consider condensing it and moving some of the shave off to the rather incipient article on Khmer grammar. One thing I think could be moved right away is the table of prefixes - which is too large and breaks the section flow, and frankly seems unnecessarily detailed. I also think the table of permitted consonant clusters could be dispensed with. It is however, more than sufficient for GA level quality.

   B. Focused:

   Yep.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   #Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Requires some expansion and work to pass. I will put it on hold meanwhile. Definitely pass. A very nice article which was greatly improved through the review process.

@Maunus: I believe I've addressed your concerns and additionally made a few other minor improvements along the way. Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be done before promotion to GA. Thanks.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)