User:Aygul2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Second language writing

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The article needs more information and we can see so many sections needs improvement. For example, the history of second language writing, people who contributed to the field. Although there is more detailed information about female scholars in the field, there are still other scholars who deserve to have a wikipedia page.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article misses the history section where people can learn how and when the field of second language writing was found as a new field although the article is linked to other sources in Wikipedia that is hard to follow the history of second language acquisition. It also needs information about scholars as I mentioned earlier. The article is not well organized, and this is one thing that can be improved.

Lead section of the article has very few information, and several journal names. It has a concise introductory sentence, but the lead section needs more detailed information. The lead section does include the information that is not included in other parts of the article. Content of the article includes enough information, however, other parts do not have information at all. The article has the content related to the field. It needs sections and subsections to understand what falls under which broader topics such as journals and conferences inn the field. Since the article does not have much information, probably, that's the reason for its lacking of a good organization of the content. I did not notice any biased views or underrepresented or overrepresented viewpoints or other issues in the tone and balance of the article. I just think the article was not paid attention or contributed by many, therefore, there is less information. However, I did not see any problems in the tone and balance of the article. I think, the article has much information that is cited and linked to the sources they were taken. However, there are still some areas that needs references. Organization and writing quality definitely needs improvement as the article is not well-written and well organized and images need to be included to make the article more interesting for readers of the article. Talk page of the article does not have discussions

Feedback from Vetter
Hello - Great work on this article evaluation of Second language writing. It's a good choice to work on for this assignment because of how it matches your research interests, as well as because of the obvious developmental needs it demonstrates. You also did a nice job of answering the evaluative questions. I really liked how you noticed that the article is missing a history section. This could be a good section to include immediately after the lead. I would also recommend moving the section on "Perspectives and Theories" up to be immediately below this new History section. I know that Matsuda has a historical account of second language writing, you might also look for a chapter from a book entitled Guide to Composition Pedagogies by Tate et al, and the chapter title is Second Language Writing by Matthew J. Hammill, which would be a good overview source.

Both of these would be great starting places for your editorial work. I

Just keep in mind that you don't need to take the article to any kind of "final version" - the assignment requirements are


 * Minimum of 4 references cited and added to Wikipedia article
 * Minimum of 300 words added to Wikipedia article

I'm excited to see what you will do with this article. Keep in mind that a draft of your edits is due on Oct. 4.

-DarthVetter (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)