User:Dorseyc90/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: (link)Iconicity
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article was chosen due to the subject matter related to Linguistics. In general the field of linguistics is fairly new compared to other professions, so research is ongoing. Iconicity in particular is of interest.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? This article does include an introductory sentence to the overall topic of iconicity.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article includes a content area that outlines the major sections of the article, however it does not call out each major section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead appears to list information that is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The contents are relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The latest source appears to be from 2004 and the last update from 2015, possible updates can be made.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content isn't missing.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The content appears to be neutral and explanatory.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There doesn't appear to be biases.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints appear to be balanced.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? As this doesn't appear to be a persuasive article, there doesn't seem to be a pull to one side or another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Citation within article need to be reviewed however there are multiple cognitive linguistics sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources appear to be relevant to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Sources are more outdated as there are none prior to 2004.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? links appear to work

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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no images present so below questions aren't applicable.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Corrections in information listed in article (there is a misquote per the talk page)
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated as a Start-Class. There isn't a rating on projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Start-Class
 * What are the article's strengths? Clear organization
 * How can the article be improved? Addition of imagery, checking of sources and quotes.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Currently underdeveloped.

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: