This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. English Language Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

I have cited A student's introduction to English grammar,^[1] of which I am the third author. In doing so, I believe I have followed Wikipedia policy on self citation.--Brett (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to giving this article its long-awaited review. Before doing so, however, I'd like to ask about one point -- and perhaps suggest the kind of change that probably isn't part of a GA reviewer's job. I hope that it's not improper for me to bring it up here.

As I read through the article its major components seemed very much in accordance with The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002). Fine with me: CamGEL is, I think, generally regarded as the most authoritative reference grammar of Late Modern Standard English. (This doesn't mean that I think other viewpoints should be excluded.) But something jarred: determinative was used for the function, and determiner for the category -- the exact reverse of CamGEL's terminology. I believe that this is what A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) does, though I don't have immediate access to a copy right now and can't check. If it does indeed put them this way around, well, ComGEL was a major achievement in its day, but it has been eclipsed. And its terminology for the pair strikes me as perverse -- particularly as it was published at around the same time as Huddleston's English Grammar: An Outline (Cambridge UP, 1988), which clearly differentiates between the two terms: determinative for the category (p.32) and determiner for the function (p.86).

Is there some reason for the use in this article of determinative for the function and determiner for the category? -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you say is true, and my personal preference is to follow CamGEL. Nevertheless, that is very much the minority position. Most of linguistics uses determiner as the label for a lexical category and determinative not at all. This is also the practice in most dictionaries, including the OED, the LDOCE, and the English and Simple English Wiktionaries. There is also an article about English determiners, which is about the lexical category. Brett (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Confession: When I wrote the above, I hadn't even glanced at the article English determiners. And it had been a very long time since I'd last looked at any article on English grammar. They all seemed to be junk, cobbled together by well-meaning editors from what they regarded as mainstream grammatical conceptualizing, as it has been faithfully and uncritically passed on from generation to generation of "grammarian". Back then, I thought for a few moments about trying to bring matters up to date but realized that I'd be up against a consensus of editors armed with Reliable Sources, and I decided that life was too short. Unrelated to that, for a few weeks I'd been thinking of doing a GA review (for the first time, to the best of my memory), and noticed that English Adjectives was among the short list of candidates that had been waiting for months. Fearing the worst, I took a look, and was delighted to see that it was utterly different from what I'd expected. I read it quickly, wrote the above, and only then realized that you (Brett) had already transformed the articles on the other word categories into solid surveys. Excellent! ¶ Well, in the short term, "determiner" will be the category and "determinative" the function -- even though this still seems perverse to me. Perhaps we can discuss the matter a little later. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revising the English lexical categories has been bit of a project of mine over the last few years, but I must say that Whmovement has been instrumental in getting them to this point, and reviewers have been unfailingly helpful too. And once we've brought them to a certain point, they've been surprisingly stable. I haven't yet worked up the motivation to tackle verbs though. ¶ As for "determiner", it's just a terminological choice. Best to let it go, I think. Thank you, by the way, for taking on this review.Brett (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brett, I'm loath NB Adj with obligatory complement: not a phenomenon that seems to be mentioned to let it go, but I'll do so, for a time. Now, if you could respond to my comments, that would be most welcome. Of course you are (and Whmovement is) free to reject any of them, and indeed I'd be surprised if there were no duds among them. Rejections would not need elaborate justifications. (Sooner would be better; but as you've had to wait months for a review, you've surely earned a freedom from obligation to respond quickly.) Once I have your response, I'll move on to the next stage, which I imagine will be simple and fast. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC) PS I misimagined. I'm now mid-stage. However, I expect that the next stage will be the final one, and that it will be easy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:English adjectives/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hoary (talk · contribs) 12:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

• This article discusses adjective phrases (of course), noun phrases, and more -- but, anomalously, "prepositional phrases" (though there's also an occasional mention of "preposition phrases"). I suggest changing "prepositional phrase(s)" to "preposition phrase(s)" throughout.
• There are numerous examples of both "color" and "colour", for no obvious reason. (None seems to be quoted from some other author.) Better to standardize one way or the other, and then perhaps to attach an orthography template at or very near the top: {{Use Canadian English|date=September 2022}} or of course one of the alternatives listed in Template:Use Canadian English/doc#See_also. PS Brett, I must remind myself that although I find disputes among quasi-standards of English orthography uninteresting (if not plain silly), others take such choices most seriously and have even written up a relevant selection criterion here in the "Manual of Style". Well, this is the very first version of "English adjectives" as an article. (It had previously been a redirect.) It's yours, and it included a token of "colour" but none of "color" or indeed of any other distinctively spelled word. So you're free to specify that the spelling is any quasi-standard that allows "colour", and to standardize to that quasi-standard.

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference to A Student's Introduction: The name of the primary author appears on the title page (and elsewhere) as "Rodney Huddleston" (no "D.").

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• with the adverb very as a modifier → with the adverb very as a modifier

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Statement" sounds a bit odd here, as we're not discussing speech acts. Perhaps:

  leaving out the prepositional phrase complement results in an ungrammatical statement → leaving out the preposition phrase complement has an ungrammatical result

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• can head phases → can head phrases

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• function as predicative complements and predicative adjuncts at the clause level → function at the clause level as predicative complements and predicative adjuncts [to prevent a possible misinterpretation]

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• a constituent that specifies a property to the referent of another constituent (the predicand) → a constituent that assigns a property to the referent of another constituent (the predicand) [But is "the referent of" necessary? Strictly speaking, perhaps so -- but a little later, we have "assigning the property 'quite capable' to the predicand", NB not to the referent thereof.]

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Adjective phrases functioning as predicative adjuncts → Such adjective phrases [merely a suggestion]
• detatched from the clause → detached from the clause

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "with particular heads [...] or with certain compound heads [...]" There's an uncomfortable mismatch here. The former are the heads of the AdjPs; the latter are the heads of the NPs that have these AdjPs as dependents.

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Specifically, they can function as predeterminatives → Specifically, they can do so [merely a suggestion]

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The adjective phrase childish function → The adjective phrase childish functions

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the second sentence as a bit of a garden path. Rather than "because", how about "for three reasons:"?

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would this not be better titled "Attributive-only and predicative-only adjectives"?
• The Cite web template used in the LDOCE reference has a minor syntax error. Remove "url-status=live|" (unless information about a version at the Wayback Machine [or some other archiving service?] is added).
• as it the bath is hot and the bath is nice → as are the bath is hot and the bath is nice

Addressed, with thanks! I've gone with non-attributive and non-predicative, since they may have other functions.Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they indeed may. Good point. -- Hoary (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Participate in the system of grade" seems oddly cumbrous, and likely to mystify a reader who doesn't already know what it's about. Is the reason for avoiding the simple alternative "are gradable" that the latter might be thought to encompass only comparative and superlative? (Participation in the system of grade/number also turns up elsewhere in the article.)
• at least some have particular senses that do not → at least have particular senses in which they do not
• the stereotypical characteristics of the institutions of Canada → stereotypically Canadian characteristics [merely a suggestion]

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This rubric makes me feel uneasy. What I'd understand "traditional types" to mean is close to what we both might call the prototypical types. By contrast, most of the "traditional types" here are, according to mainstream linguistics of the last half-century or more, not even peripheral types. Rather, they're words traditionally misidentified as adjectives. I imagine that "Traditional types" was intended as shorthand for something like the painfully verbose "Labels used traditionally for what traditionally were regarded as adjectives", but isn't there a solution that's reasonably concise yet not misleading?
• Many words have been categorized → Many words that have been categorized
• a possessive adjective, an interrogative adjectives → a possessive adjective, an interrogative adjective

Addressed, with thanks! I've used "Other types claimed in traditional grammars"Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That works well. -- Hoary (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This type also includes → This term has also been used for

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Here we have the first of, I think, eight examples of "are seen/categorized by other grammars as". Neutrality is an admirable goal, and we may use the same criteria to judge the taxonomic arguments put forth in CamGEL and those put forth by, say, Nevile Gwynne; but we needn't suggest that their conclusions are of similar status. I suggest that where appropriate this should be "are now categorized as", "are now understood to be", or similar, perhaps with modifications such as "generally", "by linguists", "since around the mid 20th century" or whatever.

Addressed, with thanks! I've used "most modern grammars"Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. -- Hoary (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Are they perhaps also categorized by some linguists as determinatives (or in this article's current terminology, as determiners)?

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the example what a lovely day! is presented as ending with "!", perhaps how are you merits a "?".

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Any particular reason for "qualify"?

This matches the traditional definition at the beginning of the section. I've added scare quotes.--Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. -- Hoary (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• derived from common nouns → derived (or thought to be derived) from proper nouns [Because we know that, for example, "Tokyo" in "the Tokyo train system" isn't derived from the noun "Tokyo"; it is the noun "Tokyo".]
• the Regan administration → the Reagan administration

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As for "Proper adjectives" (immediately above): within, say, "a New York storefront", linguists now understand that New York isn't an adjective. So perhaps "adjectives, or what were/are thought to be adjectives, composed of two or more words". (Come to think of it, "two or more words", or "two or more bases"?)

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers may wonder "Related to what?" A brief reference to relative clauses/constructions might be helpful.

Addressed, with thanks!Brett (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the -er and -est suffix → the -er and -est suffixes
• but not more happy → but usually not more happy [Or so I believe, though I confess that I can't be bothered to check in COCA or similar.] Looking for the string "more happy" within iweb, I see a great number of tokens. Of course many of these are irrelevant here ("there would be more happy families", etc, where more is a determinative) -- but many are not.

Addressed with thanks!--Brett (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Adjectives may be formed by the addition of affixes to a base from another category of words." Yes, true. "Prefixes of this type include [...] a- + adjective (typical → atypical), [...]" Something is wrong here.
• "Prefixes of this type include [...] un- + past participle (married → unmarried)" I can't be bothered to dig out Bauer's book to check what he writes; but I venture to say that something's wrong here. Unmarried prefixes the (participial) adjective married, IMHO. ^?Marriedly would have to be derived from an adjective; tokens of it are very few, but: here (the relevant sentence sounds good to me, though I can't say the same for the wider context), here (ditto), here ("an example"), here (obviously a play on "madly"); but, to be fair, an unacceptability judgment.
• "noun or verb + -less (home → homeless)" Better give an example for the deverbals. (Relentless?)
• Apropos of deverbals, there are also such derivations as aquiver and afloat. Actually they're very few, and most could instead be denominals: I only mention them here for possible use if you'd like a richer list of options. Source for this: R. M. W. Dixon, Making new words (Oxford: OUP, 2014; ISBN 978-0-19-871237-4), p.295. (If it matters, Dixon hyphenates them: "a-float", "a-quiver".) Again, feel free to ignore this.

Addressed with thanks!--Brett (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is typical of English adjectives to combine with the -ly suffix to become adverbs (e.g., real → really)." Indeed yes. Of course a detailed treatment should go not here but in the article on English adverbs; but perhaps one or two additional examples would help to demonstrate the productivity of this process. How about something like encouragingly? (Or indeed, this?) Incidentally, might it be a good idea to point out in a footnote that there are also deadjectival -ly adjectives (poorly, kindly, goodly, gingerly, etc)?
• wise → wise

Addressed with thanks!--Brett (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• but cannot inflect for (× 2) → but not for [merely a suggestion]
• "English nouns head phrases that can function as subjects, direct objects, or indirect objects" Yes, true. But also as predicative complements (indeed, very commonly so). It's not clear why AdjP is described as having this role but NP is not.
• function as the head of phrases → either function as the heads of phrases or function as the head of a phrase
• [table; cell for Nouns, Typical function:] subject, direct object, indirect object → head of phrase functioning as subject, direct object, indirect object, predicative complement [Because though yes, we can say "Brett gave students bonbons" we can't say *"Teacher gave student bonbon", and predicative complement is a common function for an NP: "This GA reviewer is a chump". Come to think of it, a noun is a standard prehead modifier of a noun ("linguistics teacher") and an NP is, in contrast to an AdjP, a standard preposition complement ("into the sea").]
• "But the color term occurs attributively as a pre-head modifier of a noun, which suggests that it is an adjective." But we have "brick wall", "linguistics teacher", etc. Perhaps "suggests that it is" → "makes it look like"?
• "Noun-like words"? This suggests that they're not nouns, but I'd be surprised if thinking 21st-century linguists believe that they are anything other than nouns. Perhaps "Words that elsewhere obviously are nouns"?
• On history (multiple occurrences), and histories (at least once): "The student is history" is presented (via the star) as ungrammatical. To me, it's grammatical, indeed idiomatic: "The student is history: his ex blew him away with an AK47." (Excuse the tastelessness.) Of course this acceptability exclusive to interpretation as an idiom is irrelevant to what the article is trying to get across here, but it's an unnecessary distraction. Simply change "history" throughout the paragraph to any other area of study, for example "geography".

Addressed with thanks!Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• e.g., (e.g., tired, → (e.g., tired,

Addressed with thanks!Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding of semantics is particularly feeble and perhaps that's why the first paragraph confuses me slightly. (I first misread it as saying that a word in one sentence quantifies over a word in the gloss of that sentence.) How about "For example, the adjective occasional in She also has an occasional whiskey (i.e., "She drinks whiskey occasionally.") quantifies over her drinking rather than describing the whiskey"?

Addressed with thanks!Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a fairly substantial chunk of text to come with no reference. If it were for some publication other than Wikipedia, it wouldn't need a reference, as L1 English readers would vouch for its Truth. But this being Wikipedia (and "Facts not Truth", etc), it would benefit from referencing. I'm pretty sure that at least the first of its three paragraphs can be sourced to CamGEL.

Addressed with thanks!Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• a different interpretations → a different interpretation
• This section too would benefit from a reference.

Addressed with thanks!Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "a stem in a compound word": I wouldn't use stem in this way; I'd say free base (or base). True, WP doesn't seem to have an article about either "free base" or "base", whereas it does have one for "stem"; but the latter article is unhelpful.
• Within the longer paragraph, I think more italicizing would be beneficial.

Addressed with thanks!Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside a Cite template, a DOI can be entered as (for example) {{doi|10.2307/3723099}} (see Template:doi), an ISBN as (for example) {{ISBN|0-7486-2691-3}} (see Template:ISBN), and a JSTOR reference as (for example) {{JSTOR|4175761}} (see Template:JSTOR). (This should not be taken as a request; it's merely a friendly nudge.)

Not implemented, but thank you.--Brett (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I now notice some oddities that I didn't notice before.

First batch:

• Examples are in italics, but strings that are being discussed within these examples are either additionally bolded (emboldened?) or additionally underlined. If their difference has a meaning/intention, this eludes me. If the choice between the one and the other is arbitrary, better standardize one way or the other: all of them bold, or all of them italicized.
• Within the section "Predicative complements", we read both "For example, the dinner was lovely ascribes [...]" and "In the clause She seems quite capable, for example [...]. Again, there may be some intended distinction that I fail to notice; but if not, either all whole-sentence examples should start with a capital, or none should (unless, of course, a capital is required for some other reason).
• Section "Complements of adjectives": At the very end, bold/italicize "a second chance".
• Section "Modifiers of adjectives": It's not at all obvious to me that "in the morning" modifies "early". My own (strong) intuition, FWIW, tells me that "very early" is an AdvP modifying PP "in the morning". I could of course be wrong, but perhaps a different example would be better.
• Section "Predicative complements": subject-related PCs "are most commonly realized by adjective phrases", citing a book by Aarts that I shan't be able to look at for a couple of days. If this is what Aarts says, well, he's a Reliable Source whereas I'm just a nobody with an internet connection; however, I'd guess that they're most commonly realized by either AdjPs or NPs.
• Section "Predicative adjuncts": "I was happy to see her" not italicized but in quotation marks.

Addressed, with thanks!--Brett (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch:

• Section "Non-attributive and non-predicative adjectives", last paragraph. I don't think I have access to Matthews' book, and thus can't see the original context for myself. Without this context, I'm puzzled by the notion of a divergence between the attributive and predicative uses of adjectives: I can perhaps guess what he might mean, but I don't know what he does mean.
• Section: "Proper adjectives": It was obvious to me that fixes would be trivial, non-controversial, and quicker just to implement than to describe and then have you read and implement. Hope that's OK!
• Section "Inflectional morphology": As I understand it, almost no adjective disallows periphrastic expression of degree of comparison. I could be wrong (and if I am, don't hesitate to say so). But if I'm right, then perhaps: "Adjectives with two syllables vary in whether they can mark degree of comparison through inflectional suffixes or must do so periphrastically with more and most." (My underlining here is of course merely for your convenience.)
• Section "Category maintaining", on botanic → botanical. Are you sure that ‑al, when it appears to follow adjectives ending ‑ic, is an additional suffix? If it is, then I don't know what it would have been for, etymologically, or what it is for, morphologically. I tend to think that ‑ic and ‑ical are alternative suffixes, sometimes bringing about adjectives whose meanings have specialized ("The candidate's attempts to sound presidential were comical/^#comic", "She had a long career as a comic/^#comical actor"; etc).

From the OED: "Etymology: < classical Latin cōmicus COMIC adj. + -AL suffix1."--Brett (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Gulp] I sit corrected! -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Section "With an adjective as the lexical base": There's nothing wrong here, and of course this isn't the place for a disquisition on morphological productivity. But it is a bit odd to see wildly productive ‑ness lumped together with ‑th, unproductive for centuries and seen in only a handful of (admittedly very important) nouns. Some sort of tweak here would help.
• Section "Compounding": I suspect that the spelling "failsafe" is commoner.
• Section "Adjectives vs nouns": It might be worth pointing out that what would be written as "a deep, orange hue" is the result of the simple stacking of two AdjPs. Or avoid that complication but say something like "less clear in cases like a deep orange hue (when written without a comma or spoken without a pause)" ... but I've a hunch that there's a better way of handling this complication.
• Section "Adjectives vs verbs": You've got a good test here, but it's complicated by the fact that very will sound awkward with many adjectives for merely semantic reasons. How about adding a little more diagnostics? (See SIEG 2nd ed, pp. 161–163).
• Section "Pre-head vs post-head modification": Being a bit persnickety here, but perhaps "currently" should instead be something like "currently, or at the particular time described". (Because I can talk of the stars visible that memorable night in April.)
• Section "Compounds vs modifiers": Is this series of articles using "^#" for "semantically/pragmatically anomalous" or similar? If so, then perhaps it's the better choice for "soft ware", which manages to be grammatical, although it's nonsensical. (OTOH if this would require its own explanatory footnote, leave "*" as is.)

Thank you! these have all been addressed or explained above.--Brett (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again:

• In "Functions": "adjective phrases function as [...] complements in preposition phrases". Um, really? (Perhaps "preposition" → "verb"?)
• In "Gradable and non gradable adjectives", there's a reference to The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, p. 351. But I believe you mean pp. 531–532.
• In "Adjectives vs nouns", immediately above the table, you have references 28 and 29 right next to each other. (Possibly this is the result of some accidental deletion or similar; but whatever the reasons for their positioning, the two references are appropriate where they now are.) They could be combined: "Aarts, Bas. Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2011. pp. 42–44, 63–64."
• A couple of the references towards the end are in scrambled order. Both read: "Huddleston, Rodney (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Geoffrey K. Pullum. [...]"

All done, thanks!--Brett (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As good" (and the like): stupidly, I hadn't thought of these. I sit corrected, again.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: "Words to watch" and "fiction" are irrelevant here; the others:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Inline referencing,

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Aarts, Bauer, Huddleston, Leech, Matthews, McCawley, Partee, Pullum, and Zwicky are widely recognized authorities, and several of the books via which they are cited are particularly respected. Garner is not a linguist, but he is cited for material about which he'd be a reliable source. The other material too is reliable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: It's fine. (If anyone's interested, Earwig's Copyvio Detector says "Violation Unlikely: 28.6% similarity".)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: (This relatively new article has never been the subject of a content dispute.)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Yes, the two diagrams help explain the topic. Rather than being captioned, they are explained in the body text. As captions seem unnecessary (if added, they'd merely repeat what is easy to find and understand in the body text), I say:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: And I thank Brett for his patience.