User:Cubellod/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Morpheme

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I picked this topic as it was relevant to the class I am taking this Wikipedia course for. This article matters as it describes an important concept in the field of linguistics. The article is listed as a level-4 in the Society and Social Sciences section, as well as high-importance by WikiProject Linguistics. When I first looked over the article I got the impression that it was obvious it needed some attention. There are 5 different warning banners throughout, describing issues the article has. Multiple banners described the article as being poorly sited, which is problematic for any wiki page.

Evaluate the article
The lead section seems to do an adequate job at defining the topic, but I feel it does not properly address the articles major sections. The lead section also provides examples of morphological analysis that may be too advanced for this section, they may be better placed elsewhere. As for content, most of the content present seems like it should be included in the article, but there may be some exceptions. The "morphological analysis" section seems to be explaining something quite specific, and since it is not properly cited it's difficult to determine whether this content is wholly relevant or necessary. Additionally, the lead section has some examples of "morphological analysis" that seem out of place, as mentioned before, that are not at all referenced in this section. As for neutrality, there was one area that seemed somewhat under controversy. The morphological analysis in the lead section uses "able" as an example of a bound morpheme. In the talk area, it seems the validity of this statement was debated, as "able" could also be considered a free morpheme. It may make more sense to use a different example that isn't so controversial, if possible.

This article is definitely lacking when it comes to citations. There are multiple sections that have paragraphs of information without being properly cited. A few of the citation links also do not properly lead to whatever is meant to be referenced, displaying error pages instead.

The article also appears to have some issues with how it is sectioned. One example of this is the fact there is a section labelled "zero-bound morpheme" with no further text written underneath the header. This section is also listed right above another section, titled "zero morpheme", which then displays the information that would have likely also been listed underneath the header "zero-bound morpheme." The existence of this header is unnecessary, especially since it has no information underneath it.

This article has no images. On the talk page, there are multiple discussions on how this article needs intense review or rewriting. As previously mentioned, there was also some conversation on the controversy of "able" as a free or bound morpheme. This article is rated as a c-class in quality, high-importance and has also been marked as needing immediate attention by by WikiProject Linguistics.