User:Bookworm1221/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Evolutionary linguistics: Evolutionary linguistics
 * I decided to evaluate this article because it seems to talk about an interesting perspective of English. Being interested in the article should make it easier to review.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead begins with a short simple sentence that explains what the topic of the article is. It is easy to understand. The lead introduces related subjects early on, and presents challenges with the concept of evolutionary linguistics. The related subjects are useful information, but otherwise do not seem to contribute to the article. The challenges, on the other hand, occur frequently within the rest of the article. The lead contains useful information, so while it is not concise, it is not overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is very relevant to the topic. However, some of it runs the risk of being outdated, as some cited sources are dated at the early 2000s and the 1990s. Although I do not know much about the topic, I did not see any missing content or any content that does not belong. The only thing I felt it was lacking was more information in the Evidence section. It mentions problems with a certain piece of evidence, and provides citations, but it does not give examples of people who oppose it or those who are for it. The article does not seem to deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article seems neutral. The only questionable part seems to be the Evidence section. It shows evidence that explains a particular challenge with the topic. The source cited seems to believe that this evidence is accurate. However, the rest of the section seems to be dedicated to showing how that evidence is actually false. All of the cited sources I could access seem to be one-sided, so it was unclear to me as to whether this was bias or fact.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
All the facts seemed to be backed up. I checked a few sources, and they either seem to be books or essays of which I was only able to access the summary. One source I checked, however, led to a dead end. It seemed that it was either cited incorrectly, or was taken off the internet. Some sources also seemed to be old, as mentioned before.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is easy to read and understand. It has no noticeable errors. It seems to be well-organized, but I have a suspicion that it might read slightly easier if the View of linguistics section was placed before the History section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There seem to be no images except for one, which references a different article. I am not sure what images could be added.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There seem to be no conversations, as one would normally define the word. For each section there is only one person who talks, and they usually are simple updates on what they have edited. Although the "Paleolinguistics" talk section seems to be lengthy, it is merely one person giving their opinion on how to improve the article. The article has been rated as c-class, and is a part of the Wikiproject Linguistics. It also is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force. This topic seems to be more technical than anything discussed in class so far.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is easy to read and to understand. However, some of the information is irrelevant or not sufficiently supported. It also seems to have potentially outdated sources. Overall, the article is good, but not great. It is well developed for the most part, but I am sure more could be added. To improve the article, new sources should be cited, and the Evidence section should be either deleted or re-worked.

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: Talk:Evolutionary linguistics