User:Bkbrar/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gloss (annotation)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a topic related to my class Linguistics. I found it under the Academic Category of Linguistics. This article matters because it explains glossing. Glossing is important in linguistics for explaining the meanings of words. This article seems incomplete and lacks sources. It looks like an article that would benefit from a few edits.

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.)

LEAD SECTION

The first sentence of the lead section adequately describes the topic of the article. However, the lead does not describe the all of the major sections, just a few. The second paragraph of the lead has parts that don't appear to be part of the rest of the article. The third paragraph is a better overview of the topic and should be placed before the previous paragraph. Overall, it could be more concise.

CONTENT

The content of the article is relevant to the topic. The article was last edited in December of 2020 so it appears that the information is up to date. All of the content appears relevant to the topic and belongs in the article. I do not have enough expertise in this field to know if it is missing information. I do not think the article deal with one of wikipedia's equity gaps.

TONE AND BALANCE

The article is written from a neutral point of view and is not persuasive in any way. None of the sections present viewpoints in a biased way. The section titled "In Literature" is much smaller than the other sections. This section contains very little information in comparison to the other sections.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

This article is missing a lot of citations. The lead makes claims without any sources. The "Etymology" section of this article is the only one that contains adequate citations. The rest of the sections are filled with facts without any reference. Because of this, I would guess that the references do not encompass all of the available literature on the subject. The sources used are current. Multiple sources are from very similar authors. The sources proved are reliable, but I think there are more sources out there on this topic. The links within the article do work.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY

The article is relatively well-written. There are a few sections that are confusing and could be worded differently. I do not find any spelling or grammar errors. It is well organized, except for the lead. I would rearrange the structure of the lead.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

The article contains two images that show examples of glossing. They are helpful in showing what glossing looks like. The captions underneath explain the images fairly well. The images are laid out in visually appealing way. The images do comply with the wikipedia copyright policy.

TALK PAGE

The discussion on the talk page are about specific examples used and whether or not they are correct. The article is rated "start-class" and is part of the Wikiproject Linguistics. I have only talked about multiline glossing in my linguistics class. This is not part of the discussion of this article. The discussion of this article includes a broader definition of glossing than I have experienced.

OVERALL IMPRESSION

This article is a good start. It needs more references and I believe there is more information to be found on this topic. The article's strengths are that it gives a good overview of the topic. It could use more specific details. I would say this article is underdeveloped. It has the beginnings of a good article.