Talk:Ain't/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 23:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like I'm not the only one with a language-related GAN! Interesting topic for one, too; I'll give comments later on. Tezero (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• "In non-rhotic dialects, aren't also began to be represented by an't." - Source?

  I slightly reworded and added a cite. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Charles Dickens likewise used ain't to mean haven't in Chapter 28 of Martin Chuzzlewit (1844): "You ain't got nothing to cry for, bless you! He's righter than a trivet!"" - ditto

  Done. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Like with an't, han't and ain't were found together late into the nineteenth century, as in Chapter 12 of Dickens' Our Mutual Friend: "Well, have you finished?" asked the strange man. "No," said Riderhood, "I ain't"...."You sir! You han't said what you want of me."" - ditto

  Done. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "the classic example" - Too subjective for a source to work, I think. "A widely-known example", "A well-known example", "perhaps the most widely-known example", etc. would be preferable.

  "Classic example" actually comes from the source itself - let me know if you still think it should change. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  I know it does. It's kind of biased in the source, though, which is outside Wikipedia's goals (otherwise, as a stronger example, we could say "Abbey Road is one of the greatest albums of all time"). I'd prefer it be changed, although if you feel strongly I won't require it. Tezero (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Tried "prominent". Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• "all nonstandard English dialects" - I don't know if it's possible to definitively quantify nonstandard English dialects, so I'd prefer "all nonstandard English dialects studied so far".

  This language also comes from the source itself. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  This I'll buy. Tezero (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "In American English, ain’t is associated with a middle level of education,[38] although it is widely believed that its use establishes of lack of education or social standing in the speaker.[43]" - I don't see the distinction. If it's widely believed that its use correlates with some demographic variables, in what way is it "associated" with other ones?

  My reading is that usage of the word is objectively associated with - i.e., actually used by - people with a middle level of education, according to the one source, and at the same time, subjectively believed to be used only by people with lesser education, according to the other. Perhaps I should reword to make that clearer? Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yeah, "associated" has more than one meaning. I'd prefer something like "is most often used by" or "correlates with". Tezero (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Tried "corresponds to." Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since you talk about the song "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" after the motto that goes thus, mention the existence of other things titled "Say It Ain't So". I can think of the Weezer song, but I'm sure there are more.

  Didn't actually find that many, but added Weezer and Murray Head. Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The section "Contractions of to have not" - consists of all short paragraphs that are kind of stilted to read. Try merging them together in some combination.

  Gave it a shot.... Dohn joe (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The intro doesn't summarize the article too well. Its history as at least two independent constructions merging over time isn't even mentioned, for one.

  Added a bit on the independent derivations. The rest of the lead was recently hammered out after a long discussion on the talkpage. If you have specific things you'd like to see, feel free to suggest; otherwise, I'm loathe to change it on my own. Dohn joe (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some citations need more formatting - for example, the Merriam-Webster entries. Those need the publisher (just Merriam-Webster) and the accessdate. Excepting Google Books, all online citations need accessdates, actually. Similarly, Love for Love, The Relapse, The Country Wife, etc. need full citations as books; a link with a title and a page number isn't enough.

  Started on this one....

  Okay - think I got them all. User:Tezero - have at! Dohn joe (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold; ping me when you've addressed or responded to all of these. Tezero (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better. Good job! Tezero (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)