User:Elizabeth chiu/sandbox

Evaluating Sources and Articles Training Notes

 * Articles are reviewed and given a rating from "Start" or "Stub" to "Good" or "Featured"


 * Information on Wikipedia must be cited from reliable sources
 * Plagiarism is serious and can occur more subtly than expected, such as through close paraphrasing

Linguistic anthropology Evaluation

 * The subcategories of the "Historical development" section had information that seemed irrelevant and created confusion because the writing was not clear
 * For the "Areas of interest" section, the examples of research for each subcategory also seemed too superfluous
 * Why is the research mentioned significant and why did the writer(s) choose to discuss that research in the article? I don't think there are any answers to these questions
 * There is definitely close paraphrasing that needs to be reworked
 * Most citations do come from reliable academic presses

Historical linguistics Evaluation

 * There are large paragraphs of information that are not supported by any citations or references
 * The article provides main goals of historical linguistics at the beginning but then does not address all of them in the rest of the article
 * The article does not explain how the "Sub-fields of study" are relevant to historical linguistics
 * Instead, they just seem like definitions or mini Wikipedia articles about the subjects
 * The "Evolutionary context" section is extremely short

Syntax Evaluation

 * The subcategories that have been included seem relevant and the structure is pretty clear
 * The information is not supported by many references and citations though
 * The "Functionalist grammars" and "Stochastic/probabilistic grammars/network theories" sections are short
 * Also, the name of the second section is too long and convoluted