 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Academese appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 October 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 05:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ... that academese has been criticized for being unnecessarily complex and in extreme cases, purposefully discriminating and obfuscating? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uiL-CwAAQBAJ&q=Academese&pg=PA1 , https://books.google.com/books?id=G67SYKPNCQUC&q=Academese&pg=PA75, https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/457
Created by Piotrus ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
-
Adequate sourcing:
-
Neutral:
- Free of
copyright violations,
plagiarism, and
close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
I'm surprised there wasn't an article on this subject until yesterday. This is pretty well-written, comprehensive, and neutrally written. Of course, people have a lot of opinions, but the article is presenting them as opinions, rather than fact. Mostly, the one issue I have is that I think that the article could stand to have a little copyediting (phrases like "Another comic that made fun of this topic is" don't strike me as encyclopedic).
jp×
g 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
How can the subject be featured in Calvin and Hobbes in 2013 if the comic was last published in 1995? Thriley ( talk) 13:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's re-ran from 1993 theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
No entry I have seen on Wikipedia since cried out for deletion like this one. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.213.222 ( talk) 18:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This article would benefit from actual words or phrases to illustrate what is being described. 184.67.135.194 ( talk) 22:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| A fact from Academese appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 October 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| |
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 05:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- ... that academese has been criticized for being unnecessarily complex and in extreme cases, purposefully discriminating and obfuscating? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uiL-CwAAQBAJ&q=Academese&pg=PA1 , https://books.google.com/books?id=G67SYKPNCQUC&q=Academese&pg=PA75, https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/457
Created by Piotrus ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
-
Adequate sourcing:
-
Neutral:
- Free of
copyright violations,
plagiarism, and
close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
I'm surprised there wasn't an article on this subject until yesterday. This is pretty well-written, comprehensive, and neutrally written. Of course, people have a lot of opinions, but the article is presenting them as opinions, rather than fact. Mostly, the one issue I have is that I think that the article could stand to have a little copyediting (phrases like "Another comic that made fun of this topic is" don't strike me as encyclopedic).
jp×
g 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
How can the subject be featured in Calvin and Hobbes in 2013 if the comic was last published in 1995? Thriley ( talk) 13:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's re-ran from 1993 theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
No entry I have seen on Wikipedia since cried out for deletion like this one. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.213.222 ( talk) 18:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This article would benefit from actual words or phrases to illustrate what is being described. 184.67.135.194 ( talk) 22:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)