Talk:Truce term/GA1

GA Review

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

First of all, let me say you've written a good article on an interesting subject. Thanks! Below are some specific areas where I think it could be improved. I think with just a tiny bit of work, this will easily be a "good article."

• • • Thanks very much for the review LinguistAtLarge.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Specific statements I have questions or comments on

The specific statement, as copied from the article, is italicized.

• ... although some, such as pax, may be used by a particular social group. — What social group? Is this not limited by geographical region as well as social group? (I have never heard it used in the US)
  • Done Over here its posh people but that's not very encyclopaedic.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• More recently the use of "time-out" has become prevalent in ... — Maybe add that "time" and "times" are also used as a shorter version of "time-out" in the US. I would just add "and variants" after "time-out".
  • Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• ... subculture of young children ... — I would wikilink this entire phrase. I thought the "subculture" link led to the "subculture" article.
  • Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is recorded specifically as a term used to demand truce by children in lexicographer John Jamieson's 1808 Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language. — This could be rearranged for clarity. Maybe: "It is recorded in lexicographer John Jamieson's 1808 Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language as a term specifically used by children to demand truce."
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• ... derives from the "medieval term "fein I", descended in turn ... — Stray quotation mark?
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The T-shape was also used when saying time-out ... — Expound on the T-shape and describe how it is made (with two hands-- one hand held horizontally, palm down, and the other hand vertical, with the fingertips touching the bottom of the horizontal hand)
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 21:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Other things

• Wikilinks — I'd like to see a few more relevant wikilinks. Here are some of the words I would link the first occurrence of in the article: truce, game, UK, social group, vocabulary, folklorist, Australia, New Zealand, USA, sociolinguist, lexicographers.
  • Started I added relevant wikilinks to the lead section. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • MoreFainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Bold words in Opie study section — I'm not sure that the use of bolding in the Opie study section is the right way to highlight the paragraphs on the individual words. Perhaps just use italics? Boldface is not normally used for emphasis within an article.
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is inconsistent use of italics and quotes to designate words that are being discussed. For example, in the lead section, time-out is mentioned once with italics, and once with quotes. I would like to see, for example, all sample words and phrases using one or the other (not switching back and forth between italics and quotes) See Wikipedia:Mos#Italics, specifically the "Words as words" sub-section.
  • I think I've got all these. italics for all actual truce terms and "quotes" for quotes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the entire article should be converted to use the singular, including renaming the article to "Truce term." The lead sentence would start "A Truce term is ... Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns The naming conventions page does offer an exception when the article subject is a class. One example of that is Arabic numerals, where the article is about the class or set of ten symbols called the "Arabic numerals". I think this article is about truce terms in general, not about a specific set of truce terms, and should thus conform to the convention of using the singular.
  • I've changed the lead and have asked someone to help me move the page to a new title, but the article in general does not lend itself to changing everything to the singular because so many remarks are about the use and incidence of truce terms in general.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've moved it to truce term over the redirect. It's fine if you refer to "truce terms" in the plural in other parts of the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Change heading "The Opie studies" to "Opie studies" — The word the is not necessary. See below, as I have thought up a new structure for the article on a whole.
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Abbreviations — My preference would be to use "United States" or "US" instead of USA. Writing out the name (at least the first time) is more encyclopedic in my opinion. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(abbreviations)#Acronym_usage_in_article_body. This is of course very subjective, since it is OK to use well-known abbreviations and acronyms.
  • Done. I've changed the "first mentions" and section headings. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Article structure — I think the structure of the article can be improved in terms of how the sections are organized.
  

  Current structure:
  - Opie study
  - Post-Opie UK studies
  - Gestures
  - New Zealand
  - US
  - Australia
  My proposal: (The order of the countries is alphabetical for want of a better order. You could put UK first, since it will be the largest section, if you think that's better. The main difference is the Opie and subsequent UK studies are grouped under a "United Kingdom" heading, and the Gestures section is separated from the different country sections instead of being in the middle of them.)
  - Australia
  - New Zealand
  - United Kingdom
  ---- Opie study
  ---- Post-Opie UK studies
  - United States
  - Gestures

• • OK I think in this case the UK should come first because every other study starts by rabbiting on about the Opies, and all the other countries, being ex-colonies, originally or still use words derived from UK words. If I can ever find any sources on what the rest of the world uses the whole article could be rearranged on more general lines.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article has a bias toward the English language. It would be nice if there could be treatment of truce terms as used in other languages and cultures. But this can be something to work on in the future, I wouldn't expect this to be dealt with before gaining "good article" status.
  • I would absolutely love to find sources on what the rest of the world uses! If you look on the talkpage I've been making notes as I get information from elsewhere but what is really needed is sources. I'm gradually working my way through other language wikis to ask for help but it may well be that there is little or no scholarly literature on these things in many countries and cultures. As you can see, the french children use pouce (thumb) and hold up their thumbs, which is fascinating because the scots use thumbs too. No sources though and no way yet of knowing whether that is general or particular. I was going to try the Indian and Chinese wikis next.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, we'll leave this open-ended for expansion in the future. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments and questions on each of the above points can be made under each point (with correct indenting) to keep things organized. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The only other point is - now that all the "See also's"" are linked into the article, the see also section ought to go strictly speaking - which I think is a pity. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you can use your judgment. While links are not generally repeated in the text and see also section, I think there is room for editorial judgment and common sense to come into play. I'll let you decide on this. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple more things

• "More recently the use of time-out" --- Use a year or other time reference, instead of "recently". For example "Since the 1950s, the use of time-out..." or "In the late 20th century ...". I didn't change it, since you have the literature and can give the most accurate time reference for this. The reason for this is that an encyclopedia article should not reference the time when it was written, it should be more timeless.
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Round out/expand the lead a bit more. --- See if you can work in a bit more about gestures, namely the T-shaped gesture, and a bit more about United States/New Zealand truce terms. Currently the lead is mostly focused on the UK and the Opie studies (in my opinion), but should be a more balanced introduction and summary of the entire article.
  • DoneFainites ^barleyscribs 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• The wikilink in "National Australian Dictionary Centre" seems out of place. If you're linking to a dictionary, then it should be italicized, but if you're making a reference to an organiztion, "National Australian Dictionary Centre", then I'd prefer either no wikilink, or a link to the whole center National Australian Dictionary Centre if you think that Centre should have an article. The way it is now it threw me off a bit.
  • Done. I've wikilinked the whole thing. Really the NADC ought to have its own article as most of the other national dictionary organisations do. Maybe it has a different title. I'll check.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not much I can do about the fact that its all English language derivatives at the moment except continue to hunt for information but it would certainly make FAC difficult! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

---

 Done} Looks good to me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)