3. |
A 2020-04-06 14:26:12 Robin Scott <...address hidden...>
|
|
Comments: |
On reflection, I should have let this one through. Ordinarily, I'd just check the references myself and ask the submitter to provide their own in future.
On this occasion, I rejected it partly out of frustration at seeing multiple pending submissions without any references, and not wanting to encourage bad practices.
However, we should all be assuming good faith, so I don't plan on rejecting any more submissions purely on those grounds. |
2. |
A 2020-04-06 04:27:34 Jim Breen <...address hidden...>
|
|
Refs: |
医学英和辞典, 中辞典, etc.
G n-grams: 831 |
|
Comments: |
I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that someone submitting a proposed entry has
done some checking beforehand, and includes details of that. It's a shared task, and I don't
think it's appropriate to throw the whole verification process onto an editor.
I can usually check a term with a couple of copy/pastes, and in this case the term checks
out, but I certainly prefer that it arrives with some sort of case for inclusion. |
1. |
A* 2020-04-06 02:30:46
|
|
Refs: |
https://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/entr.py?svc=jmdict&sid=&q=2843916.1 |
|
Comments: |
Rejected once previously because "no references".
But even if there had been a reference or two, wouldn't you have double-checked them?
So why couldn't you just check your usual references or at least googled it the once? check it against the n-grams?
Doing that and rejecting it based on the word not being common enough or whatever, that I'd get. But rejecting a WORD, as a dictionary editor, because you're not happy with the SUBMISSION? Doesn't make any sense to me. |