User:ArushiBhatia321/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Metalinguistics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This is an article that is relevant to a class that I'm currently taking, and is also something that is very interesting to me. As a multilingual, metalinguistic awareness is something that is relevant to me and my day-to-day life.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead does include an introductory sentence, and in fact, has multiple. It's quite concise and isn't overly detailed since it briefly defines metalinguistics, but for someone who doesn't know what it is or has had limited exposure to linguistics, there are a few phrases used that are difficult to understand, such as "manifestations and enactments of co-existence." The article lead even states that further elaboration is needed on it. Some citations are also missing. It does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections. It doesn't include information that is not present in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content seems relevant. The most recent information that has been cited is from 2015, so using more recent research could be a place to improve upon. There doesn't seem to be any pieces of information that don't belong, nor pieces that seem missing. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations/topics.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral, and there does not seem to be bias, over/underrepresentation, and there does not seem to be a viewpoint that the article attempts to persuade the reader of.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Most of the facts in this article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, but there are some statements where it says "citation needed." Furthermore, many of the references are quite general. Many of the people who wrote the cited works are authors of entire books related to linguistics or metalinguistics specifically. The sources are relatively current; the majority of the sources are from 2010-2015 so even though they are a couple years old, they are relatively recent. The article does not really include a diverse spectrum of authors, nor does it include historically marginalized individuals. The links in the article seem to be working as well.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is pretty concise, but it seems to give up a little bit of clarity as a result, or rather it is much more geared towards people who have had a lot of exposure to linguistic terms. It would be confusing to someone with limited background, and could use a little more elaboration and spacing out of details to improve clarity. I noticed one punctuation error, but other than that, it seems to be correct. The article is broken down into a logical set of major points that are the section headers.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article doesn't include any images, but they don't really seem necessary for a topic like this.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There aren't many conversations regarding underrepresentation in this topic. It does not seem to be a part of any WikiProjects. We haven't talked about this topic specifically in this class, but I've talked about it a bit in the Neuroscience and Human Language and Language, Thought, and Culture courses that I've taken. One thing that it doesn't talk about that I've learned about is Jakobson's 6 Functions of Language - the metalinguistic function is part of that.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is okay, it doesn't have a lot of strong and specific citations, and lacks elaboration in different places. It has strong organization, and it does not have a biased tone. It could be improved by having better citations and including a better variety of authors. The article is developed, but could be further developed and include greater places where metalinguistics is relevant.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: