User:Calvacr/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Assimilation (phonology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was under the 'articles' tab as a good article to evaluate/work on. Assimilation is an important concept in phonology, so having accurate information about it on Wikipedia is important.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead includes a clear and concise introductory sentence that defines 'assimilation' and allows the reader's to easily understand the article's topic
 * The lead section goes into more detail about assimilation, but does not really include brief descriptions of the article's main sections; confusing to know what the rest of the article is going to touch on
 * It does not include information that is not included in the rest of the article, however the lead seems to be just an overview of what assimilation is rather than an overview of what is discussed in the rest of the article.
 * I think the lead is too detailed and some of the information should be removed and put in another section.

Content


 * The content is relevant to the topic
 * The content seems up to date/I do not believe there is any new/groundbreaking info on the topic of assimilation
 * There is content that is missing. The article should more concisely outline all of the different kinds of assimilation and then give examples, but I believe it is missing different kinds of assimilation/names of assimilation that would make the concept more clear
 * No, it does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is neutral and does not include any opinions
 * No claims are heavily biased
 * No viewpoints are under- or over-represented
 * There are no minority viewpoints to talk about with this topic
 * It does not attempt to persuade the reader, but just give information about assimilation

Sources and References


 * All facts are backed up by reliable secondary source of information
 * The sources seem relatively comprehensive; they use academic journals, articles, and books to get information
 * The sources are relatively current; as mentioned above, I don't believe there's new/current information on this topic, so older sources should be good
 * Hard to tell the diversity of the authors, however there are sources of various languages included, so I will take this as there being linguistic/cultural diversity; always room for more diversity in sources and examples though, particularly in linguistic research
 * There are well-known phonology textbooks and authors whose research could also be added as references
 * Links seem to work

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is concise and written professionally however, some of the writing is too superfluous and could be written in more basic language. Also, a different layout, including the examples and sections differently, might make it easier to read and skim
 * I do not see any grammatical or spelling errors
 * I would change the breakdown of the article to make the sections more clear and easier to read

Images and Media


 * There are no images

Talk Page Discussion


 * The talk page shows a lot of people changing the information/examples of the article; people said the arguments and examples were too thin and that it is not clear; people added different examples and rewrote sections of the article
 * It is rated 'S' for start; it needs more meaningful content and is still incomplete
 * This wikipedia articles leaves out a lot of valuable information about assimilation; including different types of assimilation. Even for someone who knows what assimilation is, this article is mildly confusing

Overall Impressions


 * Overall, the article is okay, but needs work to make it more clear and complete
 * The article gives a good starting point for talking about assimilation. The lead is good and comprehensive, giving a good definition of assimilation
 * The article needs to be structured a bit differently to make it more clear; some of the language needs to be changed to make the topic more understandable; new sections should be added to include information that is not currently included
 * I would say the article is pretty underdeveloped; more information needs to be added and current information needs to be restructured a bit