User:Colorless Green Dani/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.


 * Name of article: Pragmatics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this subject as it is the main focus of our course. I have some knowledge on the topic but not too much, therefore I can help to ensure that this article is easily understood by those who do not have years and years of pragmatic education.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not entirely
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * This lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation:
I believe this lead is strong and provides a general background for the rest of the article. The lead is able to effectively give a preview to the rest of the article but not too in depth to where the reader is lost. All the information in the lead is about the topic. However, not all of the things mentioned are not discussed thoroughly in the rest of the article. For example, the lead mentions philosophy and psychology relate to pragmatics however there is little mention of this in the article. I believe these two subjects should have their own sections within the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Somewhat.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content there relates to the topic, however there is missing content.

Content evaluation:
The content in the article is relevant however, there could be more to say on the subject. There is a short section on the history of the field but there is no discussion on the current field of pragmatics.

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation:
There are many parts of pragmatics that are rarely mentioned however some people's work is highlighted.

The origin of pragmatics section is very short and does not discuss what has happened past the 1970s.

The sections about Jakobson's six functions of language, Silverstein's "pure" indexes and The performative are discussed in detail however simpler common topics such as sense and denotation are not mentioned at all.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Three sections in the article lack any citation. This makes readers wonder if this is solely form one person's ideas or opinions rather that researched facts. It also makes it seem like there is no research or information about the topic. However, as a linguistic student with textbooks about pragmatics, I know there is more information out there from reliable sources.

The significant works portion has a good amount of sources that can help the audience learn more and the sources seem to all work. I believe these sources could be reviewed again and from them more information could be added to the article.

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?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * 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 are no images in this page. I believe the addition of a few images could help aid some of the examples or organize information differently.

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 are many corrections to facts however barely any enough discussion on the lack of sources which is the article's biggest weakness.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C- Class. It has been a project by 5 courses.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is information in the "Non-referential use of language" section that we have not explored at all. However, the general information that is beginner pragmatics is completely omitted.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Level 4 vital article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * This article gives a general definition of the subject and provides a few good sources for those wanting to know more about the subject.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article desperately needs more citations from reliable source. Also, it lacks modern day information about the field and many parts of pragmatics that we have already studied in this course.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I believe this article is underdeveloped shown by it's imbalance of information. Some sections such as the lead seem to be well formed but there is so much more that can be added to the page.

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: