User:Ashseymour/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title:
 * Slang abbreviation:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * The article still needs some work. It has a bit of stuff in the talk page that has helped the author edit the page. My suggestion is that there is a little more research that should be done to add to the article. Right now it is merely a definition with examples. The author should add some history on slang and then why it is abbreviated. Could organize it too buy adding headers within the article. The citations have working links and each claim does correspond to a citation.:
 * Sources:
 * The Life of Slang: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vcrb23hxh8gC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=slang&ots=oXDmatlpfg&sig=QsUEMIIrgZE0Uhd9flxLhw1Ffz8#v=onepage&q=slang&f=false
 * Lexical Abbreviations in American Slang: https://fil.ug.edu.pl/sites/fil.ug.edu.pl/files/_nodes/strona/33797/files/beyond_philology_6.pdf#page=125
 * English Slangs and Abbreviations Used in Social Media Twitter: http://repository.unhas.ac.id/id/eprint/1214/2/F21116007_skripsi_%20%20%201-2.pdf:

Option 2

 * Article title:
 * Social Literacy:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * This article is pretty unorganized and has a few other issues. It is four paragraphs of text that runs in circles about the idea of social literacy instead of expanding on it. It should be divided into an introduction section and maybe a few other sections like history or research. It also all relies on one source instead of multiple. With that, the source information is directly cited instead of paraphrased and integrated into their own thinking. It is written in a more persuasive tone rather than an informative tone. The citation does seem legit though because it is a scholarly book.:
 * Sources:
 * Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Y8W3AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=social+literacy&ots=a7nA-9cLoe&sig=ezST6DAvtZsmDZw4q6QnHEsrkH8#v=onepage&q=social%20literacy&f=false
 * “Give Us a Privacy”: Play and Social Literacy in Young Children: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02568540509595071:

Option 3

 * Article title:
 * Lexical field theory:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * This article is pretty well done. It is organized and provides a good background of the subject. It also provides an example for better understanding of Lexical field theory. It has multiple references, all seem ethical and reliable. It also includes a bibliography section which is pretty handy. It could use a little more extensive background on the topic even though it already does a good job. Overall, the article needs minimal help as it has already been developed well enough.:
 * Sources:
 * Hierarchical and Distributional Lexical Field Theory: A Critical and Empirical Development of Louw and Nida’s Semantic Domain Model: https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/31/4/394/5070421:

Option 4

 * Article title:
 * Entailments (linguistics):
 * Article Evaluation:
 * The article is pretty good from what I read. It provides a good definition as well as some examples. It also provides a "see also" page for other topics included in the article that you might not know about. With some more research, the second paragraph could be extended more. The citations seem authentic and reliable as they are scholarly. :
 * Sources:
 * SciTaiL: A Textual Entailment Dataset from Science Question Answering: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/12022
 * Recognizing Textual Entailment: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=y4hyEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=linguistic+entailment&ots=MeRtzItFIq&sig=hUnmX5WPV_eZYIGkU4gYt9DP9fw#v=onepage&q=linguistic%20entailment&f=false:

Option 5

 * Article title:
 * Semantic discord:
 * Article Evaluation:
 * The article starts off really strong with great evidence and information about the topic. The sources cited are reliable and scholarly. There is a "see also" page for topics mentioned that someone may want to look into. It tackles Wikipedia's equity gaps because there isn't much written on semantic discord. The article is organized well also containing an example category. The one issue in this article is that the evidence provided is not backed up by a citation which is faulty.:
 * Sources:
 * Semantic Discord: Finding Unusual Local Patterns for Time Series: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9781611976236.16: