User:AshlieDevenney/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.


 * Inversion (linguistics)
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I don't remember hearing about Inversion before in linguistics, and I wanted to be reminded of what it was. After reading, I did remember what it was, but I felt that I had a good perspective to assess the article from. I wanted to assess the article that had the topic I was least familiar with so I could gain the perspective of someone who did not have a full understanding of what the topic was, as if I was learning it for the first time.

Lead
Lead Evaluation


 * The Lead does include an introductory sentence which nicely and concisely summarize the article's topic. I was glad to read that it summarized it in an understandable way. I believe that the average person could understand what was being discussed if they stumbled across the page and just read the first sentence. One thing that I believe it is lacking is a clear and understandable summary of each of the major sections. It elaborates on the topic just a bit more, and does give a good example, but then it jumps into the bigger sections without really preparing the reader for that jump. I do not think there was any information in the Lead that was not discussed in the rest of the article. Sure, the information from the Lead was expanded upon, but I would not say that there was something in the Lead that was not present in the rest of the article. I would say that the Lead is just slightly over-detailed, but I do not think that that necessarily detracts from it. The example they use is good, and they have a good summary of the topic, but I believe the portion where they talk about the constituency is a bit much to just jump in with.

Content
Content Evaluation


 * I do think that the article's content is all relevant to the topic being discussed. It expanded well on the overall topic, and I think it was relevant if the reader wants a very rounded-out understanding of the topic. The content seems up to date based off of the knowledge I have about the topic as well as the dates on the sources that the authors used. I would not say that there is content that does not belong, however I am not sure if I am qualified to say that there is content that is missing. From my perspective, it seems as if all content that is relevant is there. I was not left with any unanswered questions.

Tone and Balance
Tone and Balance Evaluation


 * The article is definitely neutral. I did not see any bias towards one author or linguist throughout the article. All perspectives that I am aware of regarding the topic seemed to be represented and represented equally. The article takes a very factual and evidence-based approach on the topic, so there did not appear to be one perspective or position that was stronger than another. The article just presented facts as far as what linguists currently know about inversion and nothing else. There were not a ton of various viewpoints presented, as the topic, to my knowledge, is pretty straight forward. Therefore, there were none that I am aware of that were over-represented or under-represented. I also do not think the article was trying to persuade the reader of any one position. It simply gives us what the authors of both the articles and the sources know as the facts on the topic.

Sources and References
Sources and References Evaluation


 * The sources presented seemed to present a rounded-out understanding of the topic. That came from reading the sources, but I will say that the article needs to improve on citing the sources as they use them. The sources seem reliable and thorough, but it is hard to match the information to the source they used to present that particular information. The sources seem pretty current, most of them published in the early 90s to early 2000s. Possibly a little out dated, but I do not believe much has changed from that point, at least regarding the topic. The links that I checked did work.

Organization
Organization Evaluation


 * The article was easy for me to understand, having experience in linguistics and syntax in particular. Possibly a little bit complex for someone to understand coming from outside the field, but not impossible as long as they follow it pretty closely and pay attention to the examples that are given. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is also broken down well, however as I mentioned before, I believe the Lead needs some form of breakdown of the major points, more than just what exists in the Contents box.

Images and Media
Images and Media Evaluation


 * The article does have very good images and diagrams that contain easily understandable examples that enhance the reader's understanding. I really enjoyed the fact that they had so many diagrams included. I do not think any of the images were captioned however, but they were explained throughout the paragraphs that came before and after them. I am not sure where the authors pulled the images from, so it may come down to a plagiarism issue, but I do not think there would be an issue on the basis of copyright. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Checking the talk page
Talk Page Evaluation


 * Most of the conversations are about the layout for the page and what would be the most understandable for the reader. I have noticed that some of the authors of the article are not necessarily polite to one another, and I think that factor could use some improvement. The article is rated pretty highly among the readers who commented or added to the talk page and evaluation. I do not think this article is a part of any WikiProjects. We have not talked about this topic in class at all, but from what I remember from my Syntax class, it does seem to to be mostly accurate and address the topic pretty similarly, using similar examples.

Overall impressions
Overall Evaluation


 * The article appears to have a pretty high status and seems to be a very good article, at least in the terms of linguistic articles that exist. The strengths of the article are that they give very good examples and explain the topic very well. The weakness seem to be citations throughout the article, a clear understanding of what the average non-linguistics person would understand, and there seemed to be an excessive amount of kind of rude discussion on how to format the article. I believe the article is complete and well-developed. I cannot think of anything that should be added information wise, possibly just citations and maybe some captions on the images where they apply.

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: