# Talk:English nouns

This review is transcluded from Talk:English nouns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 11:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Welcome
Good day User:Brett: I propose to review your GA nomination of the article English nouns. Admittedly, I am an apprentice-reviewer and my English is second language. Also consider that I have no prior knowledge of the subject, not being a linguist or English teacher. Please tell me when I go wrong or even tell me to go away if you think you might be able to attract a better reviewer. I will understand. Please interpret whatever I say as suggestions, even if sometimes I might omit the "I suggest that" and speak in imperative for short. I am of course in no position to give you orders.
I start a first traverse.


### Lead
General remark. Your lead is supported by five citations. According to MOS:LEADCITE, the lead of a Wikipedia articles should normally do without citations because it summarises the main text where the corresponding citations should be provided. There are exceptions to this rule but I do not think they can be justified in the present case. I believe all the citations of the lead should be omitted or moved to the correspondong sections of the main text.
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: The three main categories of English noun are... - Should it not be "nouns"?
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: English nouns primarily function as the heads of noun phrases, which prototypically function at the clause level as subjects, objects, and predicative complements. - Link Clause and Phrase.
1st paragraph, 6th sentence: Like nouns in general, English ... - I feel it would be better to repeat the "e.g." in front of each of the examples in the lead. It would have helped me. I did not understand some of the examples at the first reading, even if it seems obvious in retrospective (perhaps I am a bit dum).
2nd paragraph, only sentence: For the purposes of this article, English nouns include English pronouns, but not English determiners.[6] - The sentence is somewhat astonishing and difficult to understand for a layman like me until you discover that the "[6]" marks not a citation but an explanation. Citations and explanatory footnotes should be distinguishable for the reader by their form. I suggest to use the Efn template (see TEMPLATE:EFN) for explanatory footnotes. This will use lowercase letters as marks instead of the digits used for the citation footnotes.
 Done--Brett (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


### Sub-types
Nothing to say


### Proper nouns
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Proper nouns are a class of word that... - Why singular and not plural, i.e. not "class of words"?
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Prototypical proper names, according to The Cambridge Grammar... - Why the restriction to only the prototypical ones among the proper names? This creates a difficulty for the understanding because many people, such as me, are not familiar with the word "prototypical". Is the distinction between prototypical and typical essential in this case? Most peple would understand "typical".
 Done--Brett (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


### Pronouns
Nothing to say.


### Common nouns
Nothing to say


### Morphology – Inflectional
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: A defining property of English nouns is ... - Insert "i.e." before "singular and plural".
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: ... noun phrases... - an example of such a noun phrase might be helpful.
Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done--Brett (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


### Morphology - Inflectional - Common nouns
Seems all fine


### Morphology - Inflectional - Pronouns
Quite rightly you refer the reader to the more specialised article English pronouns using the template "Main". Well done. The article "English pronouns", section "Forms", offers two tables: "Standard" and "Full list". The one at present included here is the full-list table. I feel that the "Standard" table would have sufficed. The interested reader can find more detail following the link. It reduces the redundancy (overlap) in Wikipedia. Below I discuss possible issues with the section as it stands.
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: The full set is ... along with dummy there ... - Does the "dummy there" really merit a special mention in this prologue to the table? If yes why not also "dummy it"? I feel that either none or both dummies should be mentioned.
Table - The Pronouns table comprises a column "Independent genetive" and another "Dependent genetive". I have not encountered these two terms before. I tried to look them up in the articles English Pronouns and Genertive case. I found it mentioned in English pronouns but not explained. I wondered whether there are not other names for these two types of genetives that are more common. —Many entries in the table are marked with asterscs (e.g. you*), which seem to refer to an explanation given under the table. This explanation reads "*This is Kim's, whose we forgot is not possible." I do not understand this explanation and doubt that it really pertains to all the entries marked with asteriscs.
 Done--Brett (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Pleas find some more suggestions above. I had hoped that in the lead you would keep the explanatory note you had at the end of the 2nd paragraph, but you deleted it.
Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. --Brett (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


### Derivational (for common nouns)
The two subsections "Noun forming" and "Modifying" seem not well named. The contents of both these subsections concern the creation of new words. The first by attaching suffixes, the second prefixes. I suggest to merge them.
 Done--Brett (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


### Semantics of nouns and noun phrases - Denotation and reference
Would "Referential and non-referential denotation" be a better title for this section?
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: Denotation involves ... - The verb "involves" is a terribly vague.
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: JP ... - Why choose the somewhat cryptical JP (Justice of Peace? Jean-Pierre?) rather than any straightforward English first name such as Tom? This is distracting.
Kept the title, otherwise  Done--Brett (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


### Semantics of nouns and noun phrases - Countability and number
Seems all fine. It might be useful to add a remark about whether the plural of the verb for words like committee is obligatory or whether singular is also acceptible.
 Done--Brett (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


### Semantics of nouns and noun phrases - Gender and animacy
Seems fine


### The syntax of nouns and noun phrases
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Defining properties of English nouns are that they function ... - The sentence seems to have a syntax problem.
 Done--Brett (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


### The syntax of nouns and noun phrases - Functions
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: English nouns function as the head of a nominal ... - The word "nominal" needs to be introduced.
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: ... noun phrase (NP) ... - This is not the first use of the acronym NP. Make sure the acronym is introduced before its first use.
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: The following table includes ... - Why "includes"? Does it also show something else? I feel simple "shows" would be clearer.
Table - The title is not very happy mainly because of the "other nouns". I would propose "Functions of Noun Phrases" or "Functions of nouns and noun phrases" The table is not easy to understand. Perhaps it needs more structure. The word Adjunct and some others appear for the first time in this table. The word Complement also seems to be insufficiently introduced (what is the difference between an object and a complement?). Manger -> Manager (?)
 Done
I also added brief explanations of each function below the table.--Brett (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear Brett. Thanks for being so collaborative. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this task on and for your helpful suggestions!--Brett (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Table (revisited)
I propose to change the table's structure thus:

I am not sure about the places for Supplement and Modifier. They may be types of Adjuncts.
I am not sure whether we should have definitions of the types of functions. Perhaps the reader should look them up in the linked articles.

This looks good. I'd also like to avoid giving these sketched definitions. I will remove the line for adjunct and move it to the left like complement. At the top, I will have Noun Phase, rather than Noun. What do you think?--Brett (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I am very pleased that you like the new look of the table. Yes, of course, move the Adjunct to the left as you say.
 Done--Brett (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


### Internal structure
1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Every English noun phrases has a head NP or a head nominal, a nominal being a phrase intermediate between an NP and a noun. - Why does it not say the head of a NP is the ordinary case is a noun?
Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Grammars face cases like many were late, where they would like to say that many is an NP but that it is a determiner, not a noun. This is not so rare, but, as you say, in the typical case, a noun is the ultimate head of an NP. But in most modern theories it is not the immediate head, the N heads an intermediate phrase, which itself is the head of the NP: N < Nom < NP. Finally, the perspective here is that of the internal structure of the NP, which is (looking at the tree) top down.
So, how about something like "A simple noun phrase like some good ideas has a head nominal, a phrase that excludes the determinative (here, some), and that nominal has a head noun (here ideas) along with any modifiers or complements."?--Brett (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. The "Internal structure" is a complex subsection.
Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done--Brett (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


### Internal structure (revisited)
1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: The following tree ... - Could the word "tree" be linked to the article Parse tree? Is that the right type of tree? The triangles under "Relative clause" and "PP" should be explained. This is done in the article X-bar theory with "(The figures follow the convention of omitting the inner structures of certain phrasal categories with triangles.)", but one could probably be shorter; something like "the triangles indicate that further analysis has been omitted at theses nodes."
Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done --Brett (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
—Dear Brett. What is happening? I thought we were going so well. I think we are almost there. Please let us finish this and get it promoted. It is such a good article. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the end of the semester was busy, but I have now made the changes.--Brett (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


### Order of pre-head internal modifiers
Dear Brett. I do not understand where the term "royal" order of adjectives comes from.
—Almost there, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure either, but it looks like a joke by a professor named Darling, so I've replaced "royal" with "Darling". --Brett (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done
I have run a check for plagiarism with Earwick's Copyvio Detector and found none.
I made a spot check on [5], by looking up the Oxford Modern English Grammar page 45 at https://archive.org/details/oxfordmodernengl00aart/page/45 where it talks about pronouns.
Congratulation. The article complies with the GACR. I will promote this now.

Thank you for your help, your care, and your geniality!--Brett (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @DanTrent:
I've reverted your recent changes to this article. I want to emphasize that English Nouns is rated as a Good Article - one of very few grammar articles to achieve this status. This rating indicates the article has gone through a rigorous review process and meets Wikipedia's quality standards.
Making substantial changes to GA-rated content without prior discussion goes against Wikipedia best practices. The terminology previously used in the article reflects current linguistic scholarship (such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) that was carefully vetted during the GA review process.
If you believe changes are needed:
1. Please start a discussion here on the talk page first
2. Provide specific, recent scholarly sources that support alternative terminology
3. Allow for community consensus before implementing substantial changes to established content
The GA status of this article means we should be particularly careful about maintaining its quality and accuracy. I'm open to discussing improvements, but they need to follow proper processes for Good Articles.
-- Brett (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Above: If you believe changes are needed: 1. Please start a discussion here on the talk page first
Good idea. I must confess to having added a note on the usability of some; I hope this seems constructive.
Although there's an article English pronouns, this has its own table of pronouns. OK, but I'm very surprised to see within it that the reflexive form [singular!] of "epicene" they is themself. The article English pronouns gives themselves and themself, with no comment. In English nouns, I propose to change "themself" to "themselves/themself", with no comment; and in English pronouns, to add the note {{Efn|With a singular antecedent, either ''themselves'' or ''themself'' may be found; examples of the latter "are very rare and acceptable only to a minority of speakers; the use of this form is, however, likely to increase with the growing acceptance of ''they'' as a singular pronoun".<ref>Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' Cambridge UP, 2002. pp. 493–494.</ref>}} How does this sound? (Brett?) -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. This seems helpful. Brett (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)