Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Tetrarch (tank)
Prose concerns edit
I consider that there are several redundant elements, either bearing a repetitive element or an unnecessary context to the article. Finding it hard (and tedious) to list every instance, I gave the first section of the article a copyedit.[1] I hope that illustrates what I am trying to say better. Looking around the article than focusing solely on the sentences raised as issues could yield better results. In any case, my own work is not "excellent" (I have been oft criticised for clunky and overly-dramatic prose), so another pair of eyes would be good. Feel free to also revert the copyedit if crucial content has been lost, or the prose is judged worse. Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Jappalanf, but I'm going to revert your work; I see what you mean by clunky prose, but your copy-edit has changed some points I'm not comfortable with remaining as they are. I'll revert back, but I've made notes of what changes you made and I'll try and work on them. I imagine I'll withdraw this FAC as well; I don't like the process at the best of times and this review has really depressed me. Thanks for all the help. Skinny87 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I just made some minor MOS-type edits. One more note: I think it is not correct to label the USSR as "Russians". The Soviet Union comprised Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, and other CIS states. Stick with Soviet Union (USSR) and Soviets. I am not so certain if you should withdraw; certainly the content is there, it just needs a copyedit (albeit more than minor in my opinion). Jappalang (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just did a major copy-edit of the article, but lost it all when it edit-conflicted with your MoS stuff, unfortunately. I'll try and do it again in a minute, and perhaps you can see if it works any better. Skinny87 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Right, could you look at the new section I just copy-edited? If that looks more to what you think it should read as, I'll try and go through the rest of the article and make it look like that, less redundancy and so forth. Skinny87 (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Skinny87, that is more compact than before. Please watch out for "noun-plus-ing" constructs (User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing). Stricter grammaticians (like Tony1) tend to oppose articles if there are massive bad uses of these. Jappalang (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Right, could you look at the new section I just copy-edited? If that looks more to what you think it should read as, I'll try and go through the rest of the article and make it look like that, less redundancy and so forth. Skinny87 (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just did a major copy-edit of the article, but lost it all when it edit-conflicted with your MoS stuff, unfortunately. I'll try and do it again in a minute, and perhaps you can see if it works any better. Skinny87 (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I just made some minor MOS-type edits. One more note: I think it is not correct to label the USSR as "Russians". The Soviet Union comprised Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, and other CIS states. Stick with Soviet Union (USSR) and Soviets. I am not so certain if you should withdraw; certainly the content is there, it just needs a copyedit (albeit more than minor in my opinion). Jappalang (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Ah. What are noun-plusings? I've looked at Tony's exercise before but never quite got what he was talking about. Could you give an example from the article, if possible? Skinny87 (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'll be away from wikipedia for a few days as I move back to university, so it might be a few days before I can copy-edit the rest of the article. Just to let you know. Skinny87 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Noun-plus-ing" constructs are simply where a noun is paired immediately with a gerund (the -ing form of a verb), such as "Tony starting", "tanks firing", "fishes swimming", etc. In the article, there are numerous such constructs, usually involving "being" (a search on this gerund reveals examples such as "with earlier light tanks only being fitted with machine guns", "self-propelled guns being deployed by German forces", etc). Other examples include "with the rest of the regiment moving to RAF Brize Norton", "brigades belonging to the division", etc. Supposedly, it is a pretty informal way of spoken English that has crept into common usage (and hence frowned on by those such as Tony1). Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh crikey, they'll be tough to find. Well, apart from the noun-plussing which I'll attempt to locate, does the article look like it's in a state you could support? Skinny87 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Skinny87. Like I said, the contents are there, but the prose still need some work. I am not opposing because it is not that bad either. Reduce the "noun-plus-ing"s, and continue to root out the repetitive and redundant elements. The gem has been cut but not fully polished so as to speak. Jappalang (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh crikey, they'll be tough to find. Well, apart from the noun-plussing which I'll attempt to locate, does the article look like it's in a state you could support? Skinny87 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Noun-plus-ing" constructs are simply where a noun is paired immediately with a gerund (the -ing form of a verb), such as "Tony starting", "tanks firing", "fishes swimming", etc. In the article, there are numerous such constructs, usually involving "being" (a search on this gerund reveals examples such as "with earlier light tanks only being fitted with machine guns", "self-propelled guns being deployed by German forces", etc). Other examples include "with the rest of the regiment moving to RAF Brize Norton", "brigades belonging to the division", etc. Supposedly, it is a pretty informal way of spoken English that has crept into common usage (and hence frowned on by those such as Tony1). Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
(od) I got the ones you've specifically mentioned, but I'm not sure how to spot noun plusing from (possibly?) legitimate use of 'ing' in a sentence, and I don't want to start rewriting anything that ends in 'ing'. For e4xample, is with the Tetrarchs being used to support infantry patrols and provide fire support one that needs to be changed, or is that okay? I can't tell! Skinny87 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the "with ... being ..." is one of the notorious bad forms of "-ing" (and is an explicit example in Tony1's guide). Generally, "noun verb-ing" constructs are used as compound nouns, and hence treated as a proper noun. Simply changing all nouns in "noun-plus-ing" to the possessive form would solve the grammatical issue, but could result in awkward prose. I think User:Tony1 or User:jbmurray would give the best advice on how to identify them, but I think they are busy in real life. Jappalang (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- This FAQ gives another take on the noun-plus-gerund issue, and identifies it as "fused participle". This book A Grammar Book for You and I-- Oops, Me! gives a take on why it is bad, and on pp. 204–207, talks about how to identify these fused participles and to correct them. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- On a blog (http://benthegreen.blogspot.com/2007/06/frosts-fused-participle.html), but an extract of Fowler's (the person who coined "fused participle") thoughts on the issue. Jappalang (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)