User:Ccoonjohn/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Conditional Sentence: Conditional sentence
 * I've chosen this article because it is robust enough to foster discussion and evaluation, though it's also incomplete enough that it may serve as an example of the difference between a good and a great article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? For the most part. Though it could be more clearly and accurately worded.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's not overly detailed, though the second paragraph could use a little more work linking it to the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Sources are as recent as 2017; although I'm not familiar enough with the topic to determine whether the article contains all relevant recent information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? One section is devoid of sources. The section "Logic" needs more content, as it is conditionals are important in that field.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. (Implicative and predictive section.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I'm not familiar enough with the topic to conclude on this. Though the article does appear to use valid sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. As recent as 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It's not readily apparent, though from a preliminary look, I'd say no.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links that were checked do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It could be written better.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Punctuation errors,
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, though there are some sections that mention topics that are deserving of their own section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There seems to be talk about what this article is missing, including different types of conditionals and what level of attention should be or has been paid to non-English language conditionals.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-Class. It's part of the WikiProject Linguistics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We've not discussed this in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved? This article would benefit from a more focused approach to the topic. Additionally, a medium to heavy editing would benefit some of the sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I don't believe the article is complete as the topic is an expansive one. I do believe it's a good start.

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 — ~

Talk:Conditional sentence


 * Link to feedback: